Four days before primary election, Hillary Clinton threatening to sue over Texas Democrats' delegate selection process
Hey, something's gotta give *somewhere*....doesn't it?
By Jeff Emanuel Posted in 2008 | Democrat infighting | Hillary Clinton | lawsuits | Texas — Comments (69) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
"The Texas Democratic Party is warning that its primary night caucuses could be delayed or disrupted after aides to White House hopeful Hillary Clinton raised the specter of an "imminent" lawsuit over its complicated delegate selection process," reports the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
The paper managed to obtain a letter sent late Thursday to the Clinton and Obama campaigns by Chad Dunn, the Texas Democrat Party's attorney, which "warned that a lawsuit could ruin the Democrats' effort to re-energize voters just as they are turning out in record numbers."
Said the letter:
It has been brought to my attention that one or both of your campaigns may already be planning or intending to pursue litigation against the Texas Democratic Party. ...Such action could prove to be a tragedy for a reinvigorated Democratic process.
Democrat party officials confirmed -- on condition of anonymity -- that "the Clinton campaign in particular had warned of an impending lawsuit," and that "Clinton's political director, Guy Cecil, had pointedly raised the possibility of a courtroom battle."
More below the fold.
According to the Star-Telegram:
The letter to the two campaigns did not specify what procedures or rules might trigger a lawsuit. But one party official said the campaigns were most concerned about the caucus process, or, as the party refers to it, the "precinct conventions." Texas has 228 delegates, the biggest single cache remaining.
But only 126 delegates are doled out based on the selection voters make at the ballot box. Sixty-seven delegates -- more than many states' entire share -- are to be apportioned based on the number of people who participate in the caucuses that begin in over 8,000 precincts once the polls close at 7 p.m. Tuesday.
And, here's why this is a good thing for us:
The intense competition between Obama and Clinton has made every delegate a precious commodity. In past years, the caucuses generated little attention or interest. Now, questions are being raised about procedures, whether there's enough space to accommodate participants and how the results will be recorded and reported. Democrats have described the enthusiasm in Texas, as evidenced by the record turnout among early voters in the most populous counties, as a sign that the party is undergoing a revival after years of decline under virtually unchallenged Republican rule.
Dunn, the Democratic Party attorney, said it could all be for naught if the Texas nomination battle winds up in court.
Yes, folks, the longer -- and more bloody (figuratively speaking, of course -- wouldn't want all those little old ladies who live in fear of Obama being harmed because he's (shhhh) *black* to get all upset again) -- that this Democrat primary is, the more the Democrat base's enthusiasm will be dampened, and the more divided that party will be come general election time.
Hillary raised $35 million in February. If she can be competitive this Tuesday -- or can simply end up in a position from which she can unleash that money on Obama regardless of her standing in the race -- then it's just that much more of our work being done for us already.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Mullen: No Warning to Democrats on Iraq — Comments (0) »
Four days before primary election, Hillary Clinton threatening to sue over Texas Democrats' delegate selection process 69 Comments (0 topical, 69 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I don't think Obama wants anything to do with Hillary as VP. Thin Vince Foster and LBJ.
But a) you look like you're twelve years old when you call her that name, and b) HRC is not a murderer.
You basically sound like those Daily Kos people who scream about Bushitler and Diebold.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
I turn 12 in three months.
I'm not saying the Clintons are bad people, but bad things have happened.
And even as I write the subject, I know this isn't going to get a whole lot of agreement.
Searched all comments on DailyKos for 3 months for "bushitler" and it came up all of 8 times (out of hundreds of thousands...millions even?) of comments in that span. Of the 8, 3 came from some wacky troll who was chastised for his wackery by other members, and 2 are discussions of how stupid it is to use the term.
So it's hardly an epidemic on the site. Just makes for a better bashing of the site if you assume it is, though.
And how many dozens of articles have been written comparing the Bush administration with a fascist takeover of America? How many times has it been hinted that he stole elections, might cancel elections, and might stay in power after elections?
Give me a break. The site is a pit of mindless hate.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
I was really more taking on a specific point...the use of a hateful reference like "Bushitler."
I read sites of every affiliation and I must say that I find the other side's depiction of those sites to often be quite overblown. On both sides.
reasons) it is impossible to imagine how anti American that site is. The place would make Al Jazeera blush. They blame America for blue skies and wet water.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
_i gave your name three g's because I can't bring myself to call you and Aggie. You are a leftist and a troll, you have the ability to bob and weave and may last a long time, but you will never get me on board.
__________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
I just went over there and it seems if you search on Bush Hitler you get page after page after page of comments.
Is this how the democrats calculate they aren't racists ? When they have a klansman in the senate ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Be fair...it's not a lie seeing as how you modified the search to get those results.
And to be clear, I do not believe Bush is anything like Hitler, nor do I blame Republicans for hurricanes or bad hair days. I think you'll find that most Democrats are the same.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
This is political suicide. Her campaign has evidently given up all hope of winning anything fairly.
She's out of the race next week.
--
Mr. Dodgy is a 'anybody but Clinton' lefty and you should take anything he says with a pinch of salt. And probably a shot of tequila. Or two.
We should encourage her and her team. Anyone know any good lawyers in Austin? :-)
Or deny someone their rights to due process. I mean your party has demonstrated that it thinks this is legitimate behavior. Whats more your party has shown that even after a court decision you can fight that, fight that, fight that, and call the supreme court stooges when they don't agree.
Or is this just OK when its on duty servicemen that have their votes not counted ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
You point out that the Dem party believes in the "legitimate" ideals of "due process" and to not "disenfranchise voters." My spirit is renewed! [/snark]
Point taken, Joliphant. Good one!
Anybody remember Tom Dashle going nuts and suing Republican poll watchers in 2004?
I thought you did.
How did that election work out for him again?
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
Yes. That race was the one I was focusing on only second to the Presidential race in 2004. When I saw that update on the Daschle vs. Thune blog, it was clear Daschle was toast.
Yah, me too. I was kind of negative on that whole race before that day. Up till that point, I was convinced it was going to be a very narrow Dashle victory. I knew Thune would do well, but I figured he'd fall somewhere between 2% and, say, 524 votes short.
But as soon as I saw that, I knew the race was over. It was obvious that the Dashle crowd could smell it, and if they could smell it, it was all over. Even if it hadn't been before, it certainly was now. That move instantly lost him the "Well, I'm a Republican, but Dashle's been good for the state..." vote. And without that, he was dead dead dead.
As indeed he proved to be.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
I think Clinton calculates correctly that 2008 is her one and only chance to be the Democratic nominee for President. If she doesn't win this year, by 2012 or 2016 she won't start as the presumptive nominee like she did this time, and will already be yesterday's news even more so than Obama has managed to define her. Unlike say McCain in 2000 or Romney in 2008, preserving her reputation for a future run for President is not a constraint on what tactics Clinton will use on a long shot attempt to win the current nomination fight.
Thus in terms of Presidential ambitions, Clinton has nothing to lose trying any desperation tactics against Obama. Her only calculation is do they improve her chances of winning the nomination however, remotely, regardless of what they otherwise do to her standing among Democrats. No tactic is "too dirty" unless it's obvious enough to backfire and reduce her chances of winning this year.
Dividing the party would hurt Clinton's chances in the general election, but if she loses the nomination as the current trend is going she has zero chance. Being the nominee of a divided Democratic party is better for Clinton than not being the nominee at all.
The only incentive Clinton has to forego dirty desperation tactics is how they would affect her continuing career as a Senator, if as likely Obama wins the nomination no matter what Clinton does. I had assumed Clinton's "Plan B" was to be the next Teddy Kennedy, the liberal elder of the Senate Democrats. That's actually a pretty powerful role Kennedy has had for many years, more power and status than most Senators ever achieve. But for Clinton, I don't know, maybe it's a worthless consolation prize that she's willing to throw overboard for some tiny chance of still getting what she really wants.
Great post - I agree 100%.
I can't imagine her giving up, unless they give her the Vice Presidency.
“One element in the strength of any government is the patriotism of the people, their love for its institutions, their pride for its name and achievements.” ~ William McKinley
Assuming that she is not successful in her quest for the nomination, we have the additional favor that Sen. Obama is a likely loser in the general election, which will either take him out of play in the future, or at least lame him at the starting gate. These are two of the strongest candidates that the Dems in the Presidential offing; no matter what happens, 2012 out to be a cake-walk for the Republicans.
I suspect that some of Obama's support comes from anti-Hillary voters.I wonder how much of Obama's support will vanish after he gets the nomination ?
Yup. The assumption has been that these are new moderate Republican voters, who are "excited" by Obama. However, another possible explanation are that they are solid GOPers who, with nothing to vote for on the GOP side, are trying to cause problems or oppose Hillary on the Dem side. Who knows? Anecdotally, I can tell you for a fact a few of my friends have done just that.
but I couldn't bear the thought of looking at myself in the mirror after voting for the likes of Obama.
I still think Hillary! is the most dangerous woman on the planet.
Oh wait, that's cuz I want Democratic confusion and hatred.
I'm still dreaming of a Hillary backstabbing win and no Obama on the ticket and the delicious backlash that would cause for a McCain tsunami.
Unfortunately my hope of Clinton winning the nomination is looking more and more remote.
among Dems works for me.
Just when I think the Clinton campaign can't sink any further, they impress me all over again! It really is a shame that she'll probably get blown out next Tuesday. Having her around for a few more months sowing discord and loathing among the Democratic party would be really fun to watch.
Ironically, I think she should have done this before the primary season got underway. The Texas rules do seem overly complicated, but the time to challenge them was before the game started.
Slight thread digression:
Frankly, I think the states that have caucuses are placing their voters at a serious disadvantage. It's a lot easier for people to participate in a primary that doesn't require you to physically attend an event at a specific time and publicly state your position. I like secret ballots and delegates that are awarded based on the votes cast at that time.
Continue on this road Hillary and when the dust settles your only position in the party will be as elder weightwatcher.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
but in my bluest state of MA I'm hearing much disenchantment from hard-core democrats, most of whom probably voted for Hillary Clinton in our primary earlier this month.
If Obama is the democrat candidate, many have said they will not vote for President this time around, and some have said they would consider voting for McCain. I have not heard conversations like these since the 1980's, when Ronald Reagan took the state both times.
Independently enrolled voters make up just under 50% of the electorate here. Even Bush got 37% of these voters in 2004 against Kerry. I think McCain has an excellent chance of getting well over 50% of this vote, and together with many of these disillusioned democrats either staying home or perhaps casting a vote for him, he may even take the state. If that happens, it would be a landslide nationally.
Not predicting, but I like the sound thus far of this anecdotal evidence.
I hear you on the anecdotal evidence, but their's plenty of facts that play against that as of today.
A recent Gallup poll found that just 51% of Republican voters were satisfied with McCain as nominee.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTI3NTdhNDZhNjA4YTJkM2YxY...
I have not seen a national poll that I can site on the other side, but exit polling analysis suggests that 75% of Democrats would be satisfied with Obama. This link shows about half satisfied either way, with another 25% "Obama only" and 25% "Clinton only."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/17/obama_touts_his_el...
Now certainly, of the 25% of Democrats and 50% of Republicans, a sizeable number will hold their noses. A small portion will cross over (although I expect you're way overstating that case). And a lot will stay home. Anecdotally, I hear a lot more of the stay-at-home talk coming from Republicans this time around.
And a poll at least loosely bears out that notion...that Republicans are less enthusiastic in general about their candidate.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-02-13-enthusiasm...
This in general leads to more people staying home. Kerry recently suffered that fate. Just couldn't get enough people to vote anti-Bush...and did not offer a compelling alternative. I see McCain's candidacy playing out a lot like Kerry. Little excitement generated from within, but a strong anti-Obama sentiment driving the campaign. That recipe has proven pretty unsuccessful in the past. Obama, on the other hand, has at least so far managed to excite his supporters of his own merits...you can't say his backers are not enthusiastic.
but I'm speaking about Massachusetts hard-core democrats in one-on-one, face-to-face conversations, not someone on the phone asking pre-selected questions. Let's see how those national polls change once Obama becomes the actual nominee.
Also, now that McCain is the presumptive nominee, and Republicans can rally around their candidate and consider the Obama alternative, I think you will find some better results in those national polls.
Don't get me wrong...I agree that Republicans will rally around McCain. The question is really whether they will do so with him as an anti-Obama (as your comment seems to suggest) or as a substantive offering of his own merits. The former is an unsuccessful recipe because anti- votes are less likely to turn out. The hard core Republicans who spend all day debating on sites like RedState will all turn out, but it's those tons of less enthused voters that make the difference. And believe me, there's a lot of people that are not going to recoil in horror with Obama as president the way any good hard core Republican would.
Obama on the other hand is running a more positive campaign. I don't mean it in the traditional way...I mean that many of his supporters are rabidly pro-Obama more than anything. And that traditionally translates to better turnout. The name of the game.
And if you don't think hard core Democrats will rally around anyone who's against the war in Iraq, you haven't been paying much attention. At this point in history, there are several elements of BOTH parties that would rally around a sack of manure if it had the right party designation.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Because I posted something contrary to your own beliefs?
My post was substantive and cited polls to back the points I was making. I was on topic. I did nothing to attack anyone personally in any way whatsoever.
I am legitimately interested, whatever you may believe, in real discussion on matters. I certainly present an opposite viewpoint to most on this site, though. I must say that I do not think that makes me a troll at all.
problem with that. Conservatives are banned on Kos for breathing oxygen, but if the moderators here welcome liberals, then great. But you say a lot of things that are not true. You made a claim about Bushitler comments on Kos, I checked and your statistics are invalid. I have a Kos account, and have had one for years. I do psyops there when I am bored, but I go there VERY rarely, because the place is a depressing dung pile now.
I have found you to attack the things most here believe in, if you are a serious lib, then fine, maybe you should make that your sig. I am not afraid of serious debate sir, not even a bit, although I am not always in the mood :)
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Psyops....heh,thats funny.
but I am indeed a proud liberal. I'll have to start wearing a hat or something. Won't do much good on the web, but just know I'll be wearing it before I post anything, just for you Doc.
As to my point about Kos, I stand by my statement...that there are 8 comments in the last 3 months that use the term "bushitler." See for yourself:
http://www.dailykos.com/search?offset=0&old_count=30&string=bushitler&ty...
I'll admit I did not do an exhaustive search of breaking up the words or checking for misspellings. Just checked specifically for the term "Bushitler."
And for the record, I am against Kos banning conservatives for breathing oxygen.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Whats your point ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
...I know that and I think that opinion of mine is somewhat well known. I really didn't have a point at all.
[Note: it helps the moderation process that there are fewer comments, but there's occasionally a discouragement of the "blatantly stupid but sealclapped for because it attacks the enemy" here that I'd like to see more of there]
hate is America itself. Anyone here can go there and peruse the diaries, they do not need to read about the number of hits a particular word garners. The place is a cesspool, a bunch of spoiled brats that want to be rebels. They miss no chance to attack or society, military, or history.
If we are ever in a war for survival, these people will be neigther enemies nor allies, just encumbrances.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Typos, of course, excused.
I can't tell if you actually want a response to this. I assume you don't. But, to me, a person starts to look ridiculous when they demagogue in manichaean terms about this sort of thing without doing it in a way that exhibits a sense of humor.
It's easier to say that Democrats hate America than that they disagree on what America is or what America should be (diary I wrote 2.5 years ago for the 4th of July, there's an array of opinion...), because that negates the idea of America being an absolute. It's the same for people who view "the masses/proletariat" as the absolute, or "self-defined, vague social justice" as some absolute that you're either for or against.
Essentially the issue is that there are two different definitions of what America is. Democrats don't like your definition, you don't like ours. Debasing of discourse ensues. But to go into why I don't think it's true that Dkos users hate America would hijack this thread all the way to the Kuiper belt and really involves more typing and development than I'm willing to deal with right now.
Well said, Addison. I've long held the belief that both parties should realize they are working towards the same goal, but with different ideas of how to get there. Republicans don't hate the poor, Democrats don't hate the rich. Republicans don't hate minorities, Democrats don't hate the troops. And so on.
This is easily refuted.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Like I said, I WISH people from both parties would see it. Clearly they do not.
We have fundamentally different ideas of not only what America should be buat what the human condition is and is meant to be.
I hate to recommend Vonnegut but read player piano some time.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Knowing that "Bushitler" isn't actually used at Dkos too much, and trying to remember a term that IS used, I got lazy and just searched for "Bush is a Nazi" (the most generic one I could think of) on Dailykos. And there were only five. But one seemed suspiciously like my writing style. And indeed, I was one of the five hits for "Bush is a Nazi" on Dailykos. In 2005:
That was really well written, but still just a BUSH IS A NAZI diary. Look, that analogy is DOA. Just a hunk of red meat people can demagogue about. If Bush is doing something bad it simply doesn't matter if Hitler did it too. Similarly if Bush does one thing like Hitler it doesn't follow that we're a hop, skip, and a jump away from krystalnacht or a Reichstag fire.
The analogy is superficially resonant with far left Democrats. For people toward the center, or Republicans, or anyone that cares more about facts and solutions than rhetoric it's just an epithet without purpose, no matter how it's gussied up.
Bush is NOT Hitler.
Republicans are NOT Nazis.
These analogies always make me think, "Ok, so Bush is Hitler, time to storm Normandy," cause if the analogy is good in one situation it must be good in the other.
We don't "learn from history" by shoehorning modern players into past roles, we learn by using history has a very general guide while reacting to modern threats with tailored solutions.
When Bush "crosses that line" -- as he occasionally has and will again -- we attack him on that. We don't use the opportunity to reinvoke a stale slur that has a whole law of debate written about it. We attack the ACTUAL problem and the FACTS of the current situation, and we submit solutions to that.
I'm still thinking of the more usual suspects of Dkos' Nazi epithets.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
...hey, less that I would've though! But I was specifically trying for the Nazi comparison.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Independants are the ones driving the results in both primaries, they've vaulted McCain to the nominee position and they are behind Obama's overtake of Hillary.
The traditional party goers for both Republicans and Democrats will come out for their nominee but I think it will be who appeals to the Independants the most that will end up winning.
How to attract and motivate the Independants to come out and vote will be key.
Kinda ironic that for all the saber rattling of the far left and far right, the middle-of-the-roaders get to decide everything.
I still would argue that the enthusiasm behind a candidate drives turnout among even more ardent supporters, though, which is also something of a factor.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
No where does my comment suggest an anti-Obama offering.
We will attack him on his policies and positions, most of which are from the far left. That is why he is beating Hillary. Democrat primary voters want the left-most candidate, and she is not it. And he is the candidate of the liberal MSM.
Enough said.
Also, now that McCain is the presumptive nominee, and Republicans can rally around their candidate and consider the Obama alternative, I think you will find some better results in those national polls.
Perhaps I misunderstood your comment. I was maybe reading more than I should into the "and consider the Obama alternative." But I still do think that there are a not-insignificant number of Republicans that do not particularly like McCain as a candidate, because of his past maverick-ism (it's a word...I swear). Heck, Ann Coulter said she would campaign for Hillary if it was her vs. McCain. Sure, she was just saying it for effect I'm sure, but it underscores a general dislike for McCain by a large portion of the party. I tend to think those are the further right Republicans, so I don't think by any stretch they will go Obama. And a lot will vote McCain simply because he's right of Obama. But that segment would be holding their nose, so to speak, to vote McCain, and that's where the enthusiasm gap could lead to people staying home.
It looks to me like you were trying to attach some racism into the picture by your assumption. Nice try.
And don't tell me about Republicans not liking and not voting for McCain. I, for one, have posted many negative comments about McCain over the last few months. He was down on my list of candidates. But that was then and now we gather to support our nominee. We don't eat our own, as the democrats seem capable of doing right now.
Listening to the policies and positions espoused by Obama will only strengthen our enthusiasm for McCain.
...in my post. Not my point at all...not even close.
I completely agree that the majority of Republicans think like you do. I'm just making the point that if a large chunk of ones enthusiasm is built up from a dislike of the other guy, it's not a winning formula. Kerry supporters in 2004 hated Bush plenty. But Kerry did not of his own accord offer something that much excited Democrats. And he lost. Impassioned statements aside, history has shown what I'm saying to be true.
The impact of what I'm saying is not a sweeping thing. McCain doesn't drop 10 million votes of people staying home. But with the electoral college setup, a small impact can swing the race.
Who is going to make Hillary drop out after Tuesday ? This is going to the convention plain and simple.Neither her or Obama can win enough delegates in the remaining primaries to win outright.The kingmaker's are the super delegates and they will be getting pressure like you wont believe.Hillary will no doubt make an attempt to get Florida and Michigan dleegations seated.Its anyone's guess how they will rule but I suspect they will be seated.Remember Undecided votes in MIchigan were supposed to go to the DNC to be cast,although people were told it was a vote for Obama.Democarts are going to find out that the party will decide who will be the nominee at the end of the day.Not very democratic.
i agree Hillary will fight as long as there is a chance that she actually could win. Getting beat on Tuesday soundly would effectively destroy that chance, and even she knows it. As a logical assessment, even a selfish one, she would likely realize that what is best for her political career would be to step down, let alone what is best for the party as a whole.
Superdelegates are showing an unwillingness at large to overturn the vote...in other words, whoever has more votes coming into convention will have more coming out. Superdelegates won't change that. Case in point, can you name ANY delegates that have switched from Obama to Clinton since Obama's streak started? Heck, I can't even think of any superdelegates that have come out for Hillary PERIOD.
That a Democrat would take things to court if an election didn't go the way the wanted.
The Clintons lower the bar yet again.