How do people continue to support her in the face of this kind of unethical behavior?

You know, if you doubt that Obama wants to do things differently you need to look no further than the way these two campaigns are run. I, for one, am completely fed up with this kind of tactic. I don't like it when the Republicans do it and I don't like it when Democrats do it. That they would do this to one of their own makes the message clear: It's Clinton above the party, and it's Clinton above our Democracy.

Actually Suzie I caucused in Washington and no lawyers were present and our precinct captain had no training. I am not saying I disagree with you on everything, but I didn't see a lawyer in any of the surrounding precincts either. This may be a WA state failing, but I just wanted to point out that things are not always as closely watched as you suggest.

I agree that this may be blown out of proportion though.

I do wish everyone would stop attacking each other. We really all want the same thing, we just put our trust in different candidates to do it.

suzie from atlanta: I agree with neoprufrok (Rich), you were way out of line with that post.

Let's not forget that NYC had widespread (ie - systematic) voting "irregularities."

There were 78 Districts in NYC where Obama supposedly recieved Zero (0) votes. Statistics and reality tell us this is impossible. Bloomberg called this "fraud."

I wonder what Hillary's pre-election day Memo said for her supporters to do in these districts?

HUFFPO: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/20/bloomberg-fraud-behind_n_87564.html

NYPOST: http://www.nypost.com/seven/02192008/news/regionalnews/mike_bloomberg_claims_vote_fraud__98367.htm

Rich: Where in the material you provide is support for your contention in the title of your article, that Clinton has told its camp in Texas to "disrupt the vote"?

Unfortunately, suzie from Atlanta, there is nothing a Clinton supporter has say on this web site to get a fair reading of anything you write.

TPM, like so many other so-called progressive or liberal blogs, is a modern vanity press, it exists to promote, not the public good, rather to private good of the people running it. The notion that all of this blogging is 'citizen journalism' is false. Competitive ideas will never receive fair treatment as is obvious in the case of Mr. Rich's article in question.

I should also point out that the report was written by Christy Hoppe, who is the staff writer in charge of politics at the news station. So its not like it is some 12 year old making up shit in his parents' basement.

I assisted with the caucus process here in Colorado. I saw no lawyers assisting with anything. As a matter of fact, had the Obama people not been there, it would have been on the list of "suspicious behavior" caucuses. The turnout so exceeded the expectations of the Democratic Party, that they had to reorganize the locations twice, on the fly. The Obama volunteers played a support role making sure everybody made it to the right spot and made sure everyone had the right to vote.

No one said: watch out for Clinton supporters trying to control the vote. Only there to help.

I attended the caucus training last night at the Hillary state HQ here in Austin. I am a precinct captain now (please address me as "Oh Captain, My Captain"). Despite the silly name, the whole point of the position is to get people to the caucuses.

Having attended the training and received all the materials, I can tell you that this report is categorical bullshit. The materials do not say anything like this stuff. The few pages we got described the process and indicated what time to get there. Half of it was a xerox of Democratic Party materials. The closest thing to any of this was simply instructions of what to do if the elected precinct chairman doesn't claim the packet: get it, have people sign in, then check the names against the rolls to ensure they are eligible (they have to be members of this precinct and have to have voted in the primary). But no instructions to take control at all costs, to insist on this or that, etc.

The chairman and the secretary are supposed to collect the signatures and verify that they are all eligible voters. If they don't do that, we were instructed to raise a point of order and request that it be done. Once the list is verified, the number of delegates for each candidate is mathematically determined and then it is just a matter of choosing who fills the delegate slots assigned to each candidate.

There was a general sense of concern in the room that Obama folks would try and take control of the caucuses, but we were reassured by the Clinton folks that anyone in the room can participate, raise concerns, etc, and that it would be difficult for anyone to get railroaded. We were told that we all have the same goal in November, and that if we are in any way representing Hillary we must do it with decorum and remain polite.

Quite different from the bullshit stories that we are supposed to "take control" or disrupt the vote, we were really instructed to call our friends and neighbors and get them to the precinct conventions. Most people here don't know about them, have never attended them, and don't know where or when to show up. We were instructed to do the kind of retail, grassroots politicking with our friends and neighbors that will get people to show up.

Clearly "Clinton Rules" apply here: take whatever she does (or make something up) and call it dastardly, evil and horrible. Then amp up the attacks from there.

One more thing. This is not "The Dallas Morning News reporting" as this entry says. This is blog entry. This is like the reader blogs on this site, not a sourced and vetted news article.

Hey Rich, don't use a declarative headline like "Clinton camp tells its campaign - disrupt the vote in TX!" and then try to walk back from it by saying "It's just my opinion." That's not an opinion, you idiot, it's a statement of fact. And no, I don't feel a need to address you civilly when you go out of your way to post scurillous bullshit that's simply designed to fan the flames of Hillary hatred. I suppoose you were shocked that the intital responses were along the lines of "Boy, isn't that Hillary despicable." I guess you Obama guys are a little tired of painting the Clintons as racists, so you might as well accuse them of trying to steal an election. Interesting glimpse into the "new politics." Yeah, you guys are all about unity. If you're going to post bullshit, you're going to be called a bullshitter.

Any campaign would be crazy to let a rival campaign control a caucus. It's basic politics. But once again, when Obama supporters see standard political tactics in action (unless of course they're being done by the Obama campaign) they head straight to the fainting couch.

Rich:

Sorry about my caps and calling you richie boy. I am so sorry for my tantrum last night (it was late, I’m 60, what can I say….)

However, your headline was so totally out of bounds, so completely distorted, I lost my temper. The media, not just the Blogs like Huffpost or Daily Kos, or what ever, even the papers and CNN, are filled with posts like yours that distort the facts with misleading and false headlines. The cable and broadcast networks are so openly biased, putting Obama on for 47 minutes, and she for 7, according to Howard Kurtz of CNN, after the last primary vote, and have become the laughing stock of the world. For example, they keep playing video of Ellen dancing with Obama, but in fact Ellen has endorsed Hillary, and regularly does live “pop ins” on her campaign stops. It’s small but a peeve none the less. Every endorsement Obama gets is live, national news. Hers are never covered. The message is that he has all the support, when in fact; she has more unions, more Generals, and more Supers than he does. She is loosing Black House members, but only the men. The women are strong, Black and White, they are with her. It really bothers me.

Remember Howard Dean’s Campaign? He had a really great message. He was leading when he made that speech, and yelled so his supporters could hear him. CNN had its mike turned up so loud it distorted his sound. They played it over and over, he became the butt of jokes, and they killed his campaign. No one protested.

But Dean’s message was important, and we lost him and Clark, and Edwards, and got Kerry.

Then they played that Swift Boat lie all day, every day, and the flip flop ad, and they killed him too. And no one protested.

Now they are doing it to Clinton, as they did to Biden, Dodd, Gravel, Edwards. They simply didn’t cover them, and distorted the polls, and did what they did in 2000, “the votes have been counted, Bush won” (James Baker), until the lie became fact. I am disturbed at what I see, read and hear today. If Obama is to win, it must be a fair win. He should welcome real coverage of other campaigns, not try to shut them down. So anyway, I saw the headline, knew it was untrue, (you didn’t give a “link either, Rich) and spent an hour tracking it down. Rich, what you did was wrong. You put out information that was not only incorrect; it distorted the facts, and said the Clinton campaign was planning to disrupt an election, as serious criminal charge. Its fine to support Obama, but not with lies. If it takes lies to get him elected, what have you done?

Remember the MSNBC debate before the South Carolina Primary? Remember Russert waving 4 pages of a press release from the Obama campaign, released before MLK’s birthday, confronting Obama with what he called “4 pages of invented quotes and lies supposedly from Bill Clinton”, remember Obama trying to say it was from “an overzealous volunteer”? Remember when Obama finally admitted, head bowed, that yes, his campaign had done this race baiting, and “in fact, came out first” with the race issue? This person who claimed to be running a non racial campaign, but brought in Oprah to get the crowds he needed, who talked about “one” America, had done this, which was far more than slandering the Clintons, with their long personal history of working for civil rights, back when minorities didn’t have any. With Corretta King supporting Clinton, and MLK jr. doing the same, Obama waved the race card.

I was stunned, and was amazed that Obama’s run was not over right then. We never heard another word about that, and last week in Texas Obama raised South Carolina again, saying the Clinton campaign was up to “the same old tricks, but they didn’t work in South Carolina, they didn’t work in Wisconsin and they won’t work in Texas.”

But it was Obama who played the dirty tricks. When his supporters can not come up with a single issue that Obama has stood for, not one Bill he has authored, but vote for him on “hope”, we have a problem. Hope is great, and if we have a president who can restore our dollar, our middle class, and our manufacturing base, and get us out of Iraq, I will supply my own hope.
He talks endlessly about his speech in 2002, but has not done a single thing to end the war, not even voting on the Byrd Amendment to tie funding to timelines, in 2005. Clinton supported it, voting to end funding.

HR1268, #96, 04/18/05 Y NV Byrd Amdt. No. 464;
To express the sense of the Senate on future requests for funding for
Military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

He said in Iowa, on TV, that he had “passed” a bill to regulate Nuclear Waste, the Nuclear Release Notice Act, “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed…I just did that last year.” , but it was a lie. It was a complete lie. The bill never got out of committee, and offered no regulation. The company who leaked? Exelon:

http://www.thisisby.us/index.php/content/obama__s_rhetoric_smells_of_nuclear_waste

The NY Times reports that “almost immediately, the nuclear power industry …raised objections to the bill.” John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon (at least at the moment), while also being chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, a lobbying group, has been a huge Obama donor. The New York Times reports that “two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his (Obama) largest fund-raisers.” The L.A. Times reports that “Obama is the largest beneficiary of money from companies that have a stake in nuclear energy's future.”Also, Exelon has donated almost a half million bucks to Obama’s political campaigns (not that he has needed that much dough against the political opponents he has faced up to this 2008 race).Obama’s “chief political strategist,” David Axelrod is a previous consultant on Exelon’s payroll; “Hello, this is Mr. Axelrod for Exelon.” That’s a tongue twister. However, Obama said he has never discussed the Exelon issue with Axelrod (or was it discussing Axelrod with Exelon?)……. The L.A. Times also reports that “according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics of donations over $250, Obama's presidential war chest has received $194,750 from 150 Exelon employees, with top executives sending in the checks. Exelon workers, bundled together, rank sixth in Obama's top donor groups.” Obama has also made a mistake (remember, politicians don’t lie, cheat, and steal) when he has denied these “bundling” contributions on the campaign stump. The Las Vegas Review Journal said Obama was, quote, "hip deep in financial ties" to one of America's biggest Yucca Mountain promoters ... nuclear giant Exelon
He is contesting Florida. He ran 30 straight days of advertising in Florida, and still lost. His excuse? They were National ads, and he didn’t understand that the DNC rules forbid ads. He was slapped by the DNC, but to this day, the impression is that Clinton won because she campaigned in Florida. She did no such thing. Democrats had to do their own campaign in Florida, and knowing that they were voting in a race that “didn’t count” voted for Clinton. Naturally Obama wants to brush this off, and block the results. But he campaigned, she didn’t, he lost, she won. Votes are votes. If she gets those votes, she is ahead. I give you Michigan, my home state, those dumb asses, but not Florida. If he ran ads, that was a violation, and he should not get a single vote or delegate. Reverse it, and no doubt you would be saying the same thing.

The broadcast and network and to some extent, the print media should be confronted on its lack of balance, and its lack of fact checking. We, the voters need to demand fairness in our elections, not when our guy is the one being hurt, but when any candidate is being hurt. This is our process, and we must guard it, because it is a wonderful thing, and we must not stand for lies, distortions, and media manipulation of our voting process. In fact, it is illegal for the media to do so, but they do because we watch.

Obama and Clinton and Huckabee and McCain need to be vetted, called on their distortions, regardless of who does it. Their past is important. Everyone has one. Obama is no exception. The issue should be who has grown, who has learned from their past, who has experienced change, and knows how to deliver the goods, not who has one and who does not, and how can we justify our guy’s flaws and magnify the other guy’s.

This is not some banana republic. This is America, and we must stand for free elections, fair elections, and focus on voting machines that don’t work, or voter registrations that are blocked, or polling places that are closed.

You said Rezko was not part of this discussion. But it is. We are electing a whole person, past, present and future. I don’t really want mud slinging, and a good fact check can give a candidate a chance to correct the record. But the Rezko Trial starts tomorrow, and if we don’t hear about it, you better ask why. If it were McCain or Clinton, or Edwards, or Biden, or Huckabee, we would be hearing about night and day, with live remotes. So far we have heard nothing. It’s a Federal Trial. The same AG that went after Libby is going after Rezko, and Obama may end up being called to testify. I didn’t do hyperlinks because there are so many articles about Obama and Rezko, 50 or 60 plus, and this goes back to before he ran for the Senate, so his claim of not knowing about Rezko has to be false. You need to look this up. It is your duty as a voter. Don’t take my word, question it, and do your own research. www.chicagosuntimes.com , search REZKO.

This candidate you so clearly support has, in my opinion, run a very negative race. While speaking in hopeful language worthy of Tony Robbins he has actually been very negative, claiming all hope for himself, telling his followers to put their faith in him, denigrating Clinton, making false claims that the sources he quotes call him on it, claiming only he can work with the GOP, when in fact Clinton has worked with them over and over, earning so much praise for her bi-partisan work that she is today saying she had yet to "prove" her foreign policy experience, when she has served on the Senate Armed Services Committee for five years.

She is the only Senator invited to serve on the Joint Forces Command’s Transformation Advisory Group, which studies and proposes ideas to modernize and strengthen our military to meet new and emerging global threats.

She has authored the Nuclear Terrorism Prevention Act, a comprehensive plan based on research by former Senator Sam Nunn and the Nuclear Threat Initiative, to reduce the risk of proliferation and create international guidelines to raise the security standards at nuclear sites worldwide. Elements of this bill including a requirement that the administration set and report to Congress on its prioritized plans for eliminating or securing nuclear usable materials at the most vulnerable sites was passed into law in January.

Senator Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in June that Hillary has introduced more legislation to address the problems facing wounded service members than any other Senator. She received the “Unsung Hero” award from the American Legion for helping lead the way in securing a record increase in funding for veterans’ health care.

She has reached across the aisle to pass legislation with Senator Lindsey Graham to ensure that all National Guard members and Reservists have access to TRICARE, the military’s health insurance program, whether or not they are still serving. She has introduced the 21st Century GI Bill of Rights Act to provide the veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with education, housing and loans to start small businesses.

Today Obama promised to end torture. By whom? Our troops but not Blackwater? Will they be used to do the dirty work? Now this is important.

What he doesn't mention is that Clinton has a Bill right now outlawing mercenary fighters as part of any US Military force. She knows it may take years to figure out how to hold Blackwater to US Laws, which at this time we can not do. So she has a bill that would solve the problem, fast, by just saying it is illegal to use them: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080317/scahill

“Clinton is now co-sponsoring legislation to "ban the use of Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq," saying, "The time to show these contractors the door is long past due.".

Obama has said that he will not do that, he will not sign on to any bill that does that. He has said he will look at finding a way to look at holding Blackwater to US laws.

“A senior foreign policy adviser to leading Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has told The Nation that if elected Obama will not "rule out" using private security companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq. The adviser also said that Obama does not plan to sign on to legislation that seeks to ban the use of these forces in US war zones by January 2009, when a new President will be sworn in. Obama's campaign says that instead he will focus on bringing accountability to these forces while increasing funding for the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the agency that employs Blackwater and other private security contractors”

Rezko is absolutely an issue. Obama has called into question Clinton's integrity. He says she will do anything to get elected. I see this all the time in such vicious language from Obama “demanders” (not supporters), ‘Clinton is such a _________(fill in the blank) she will do anything to get elected.”

I disagree.

Obama has a history of long friendships with questionable people. Until last year the racist magazine Trumpet was published by Obama's Church, and owned by the daughter of Obama’s pastor. Trumpet gave Farrakhan an award. For years his pastor has traveled with Farrakhan, met with Terrorist groups who want to erase Jews and Israel from the Earth, heralding this point of view. Obama may "reject and renounce" him now, but what about the last 20 years?

I have the same problem with McCain, by the way. In this country, today, we can tolerate no haters. We are very much a melting pot. this country must never turn away from that, and must never excuse hate speech. Those who claim to disagree, but support the organization are not speaking the truth. McCain should be called up short on this, as should Obama. If a white candidate, for sure Clinton, belonged to a club or church that had this history, she would be out of politics. Obama should be held to the same standard. His church announced they had a white member on Friday, another pastor from the same denomination, but not the same church who is a white woman. They said white people are welcome anytime. Nice. Is that supposed to be enough? Was it enough for Trent Lott?

I should say that this denomination is not racist. Obama’s church is the exception. Black racism is just as bad as white racism. He can say what he wants, but if you sit in a church for 20 years, and hear racist language for 19 of those years, and you do not get up, walk out, walk away, then you are sending a message about yourself. Obama calls this unfair, but he still goes to that church. No, he’s not a Muslim, but is he a racist? We are known by the company we keep. Sorry, that is true for you and me and for him also. Had he resigned from this church, and joined another of the same denomination, this would be a non issue. But he didn’t, he won’t, and he sends his daughters to Sunday School there. What are they learning? Would you belong to such a church? I wouldn’t.

Rezko, and again, 17 years of close friendship, was on Obama's Finance Committee. He raised a ton of money for Obama, and maybe he did it differently for Obama, but for everyone else he made people pay a "fee" for his services, which consisted of getting city jobs and bids for his friends. The "fee" was a campaign donation. The charges are fraud and money laundering through campaigns, Federal charges. Obama was in the top 4 recipients of laundered money. If you go to the Chicago Sun times, you will find all this. All of it, the donor list, the ranking of Rezko campaign dollars, the work Obama did to make sure Rezko got the bid on that project that caused this whole house of cards to fall, his letter to the City on Official State Senate letterhead asking that Rezko be given the job, all of it is there.

Now you may find all this unfair. But the 527 GOP attack machine will find it delightful. If I could find it, anyone can. They probably have those dirty ads all ready. If Obama had brought this out, gotten in front of this, the story would be dead, and my opinion of him enhanced. But he won’t. He pretends it didn’t happen, doesn’t matter. But the Federal judge ruled that he can be called to the stand. Frankly, I think this could end his campaign, because the media you love can turn like a snake. And all of a sudden Clinton will look pretty good. How much can they say about her we haven’t heard? That she killed Vince Foster, or fired the Travel office? Ken Starr could find nothing on her, right? Her “past” is old news.

Now, about that little bomb you dropped yesterday:

According to CNN and FOX out of 8000 precincts, only 4000 have precinct captains. Precinct captains are the core party locals, the people who are there year after year, who go to conventions, etc. They can run a caucus in their sleep. These folks are hard core party members. They have their pecking order and know how to get things done.

Texas's system is different from other caucus states. In Texas delegates are awarded in a split race. Two thirds are awarded based on the % of vote in the last two elections, based on the system Delay pushed into place. So if the math for 2000 and 2004 is used, Black voters for example (according to the media) will get more delegates than Latinos. That was the media's example not mine. Blacks came out with 22% of the vote in 2004, according to the media, so they will base the delegate count on that number plus the % in 2000. Tuesday's vote could be triple for all or any of the groups, but the delegates will be awarded in the Primary voting based on the past. It should be clear that regardless of where you live and what your prior caucus experience has been, it is nothing like this. Texas is unique in the entire Nation. The system was designed to keep the GOP in office. Now we will see what else it does. It remains to be seen how the country will handle the result.

The caucus voting counts for One Third of the delegate count. Plus you can change your vote. You can vote Clinton in the primary and Obama in the caucus, for instance, or vice versa. Every single registered voter can literally vote twice, something no one else can do in this country, and is not bound by their first vote.

Add to this, the fact that this is open to all voters, GOP, Independent, what ever, calling into question the veracity of the vote itself, and the fact the first person in the room gets to run the caucus, and you can only imagine the chaos, the fighting, the yelling, the whole mess. People who are there to tilt the result can come out and do so.

Actually, a Republican could take control of the caucus. Yup. So that’s where the lawyers come in. This whole system is new, which is why there is so much confusion, and thus, why both campaigns are indeed training their supporters and bringing in outside help. There are lawyers flying in, my husband being one of them, to Dallas/Ft. Worth, because that is where the issues are, and he will be, along with counterparts from Obama, I am sure, monitoring the caucus's without Captains. He is a member of the ABA, and sworn to uphold the law. This crazy law needs upholding, so thus there will be lawyers. I don’t know if they will be in the room, or in the hall, or on the phone, but they will be there. He will find out tomorrow at 9:00 PM, and I will certainly fill you in. All he knows is that his job will be to assist the locals in maintaining order. If ever there was a fertile ground for lawyers, this is it. Add to that 4000 precincts without Precinct captains, again, those regular folks who are always at the local monthly meetings, who run the nuts and bolts stuff, and it is just a mess. This is very important, because the last thing we want is a mess. We need correct results, and an orderly caucus, and I assure you both candidates want this.

This is the race for the DEMOCRATIC (sorry) nominee. The reason we have Super Delegates is specifically to prevent this. They are not supposed to rubber stamp anyone. They are there to insure that the nominee is elected based on Democratic votes, to prevent another party from fixing the election. That is their role. To protect the party. If you look at the democratic votes, Clinton leads by over a million. Obama gets his lead from the GOP voters, some Independents, sure, but mostly GOP voters who “crossover” in a caucus or open Primary, and vote, and cross right back. A small % may stay, which is fine, but how many?

Don’t say “so what”. It’s an issue. The GOP wants the weakest candidate, the one they can go after with those 527’s. With REZKO waiting, and their scurrilous campaign to smear Obama with pictures and racist emails, they will be able to do so. Remember, the GOP could care less about race. We do, they don’t. Every nasty thing they can think of will be said. The biggest reason we can’t do this is because they are listening, and they will repeat it. We must not destroy these two. They are all that stands between us and the GOP. We can hate their stand on an issue, but not the person.

How did Obama get to the Senate? He ran for the House and lost. When he decided to run for the Senate in the 2006 election, his first two opponents dropped out, because the RNC wouldn’t support them. Karl Rove hand picked Allan Keys to run, three weeks before the election, moved him to Illinois, filed him, and ran him. I actually called on Obama‘s behalf, for moveon.org. Obama won, and now here he is, in 2008, having spent the majority of his time in DC running for President, according to him, “2 years”. And all of a sudden he is the front runner. And you think this is a movement? I think it’s a hijacking. Obama is being set up, by himself and the devil Rove. Do you watch Fox? I do, as “opposition research” . Rove is on all the time with this little white board, with that scary smile, talking about how the GOP will beat Obama. And they will. Pat Buchanan said on MSNBC that the GOP is “chompin’ at the bit” to get at him. I am sure they are. If Clinton gets out now, before June, and Obama is the only one left, what will happen when the GOP and the media start their hatchet job? Gee, do you think McCain would win?

I have waited 40 years to vote for a Black candidate, or a female candidate. My first campaign was with Bobby Kennedy, and I traveled all over the Primary States with his campaign. I know how the younger Obama people feel. I was the same way. But Bobby had experience. He did not tell people to “hope”. He told them to register to vote, to run for office, and to change things with their own hard work. I was there, on the platform with him, and I can still hear him.

This will not be a pretty election. The winner will be the one who can take it and throw it back. The most important thing we can do is fight over issues, not distortions and lies. All I am saying is we need to stick to the issues, know all we can about both of them, the good, bad and ugly, so we are prepared to defend who ever is our nominee. For every lie, we must tell the truth, and counter with issues. We can not afford to loose this year.

With the serious question marks in the last two Presidential Elections, any candidate still viable that wouldn't want a presence, even control, of the ballots as well as precincts, caucuses, etc. would be very naive. That's become a greater part of the game.

The media has hosed her, it's basic airtime math. Hollywood and media money, even the neocons are firmly behind Obama. They keep telling you over and over how Obama matches up better with McCain in the GE, now most believe it. As much as I dislike Hillary (which is a lot), when the contest more becomes issue-oriented (and it will) she can compete with McCain.