How do you know that what is shown is even for real anyway? Why is this person just randomly sitting around with a video camera trained on her. Is she filming a reality show or something?

Also, he never asked her to switch. He seemed to keep saying that him having her name was a mistake. When she asked if she should go for Obama he said "no."

I'm not voting for this crook! He's a bad man! He hurt me in the bottom!

that really pisses me off.

I hereby nominate Greg's comment for understatement of the decade.

Uhh.. okay, so aside from the fact that this is the Internet and we have no way of knowing whether this is completely staged.. let's assume that it's not.

So, she calls the Obama campaign. They have her listed as a delegate. So.. what? Couldn't this have been some kind of mistake? She even says that apparently the caucus was crazy and doesn't even seem to be entirely certain that she properly signed up for Clinton. Even so, if she's not actually an Obama delegate then what in the hell does it matter that the Obama campaign somehow has her down as a delegate? If she follows through then how is this relevant?

Not that anyone should take this at face value anyway.

Video looks fake.

Who sets up a camera when they get a phone call.

Very gullible stuff.

Not that anyone should take this at face value, but I read somewhere that the rolls did get messed up. A friend of mine is an Obama delegate and got a call and an email from the Hillary campaign (inviting them to a conference call with Bill!), and there were reports of others as well. So, in other words, if you decide this was the Obama campaign acting maliciously, then you must also decide the Hillary campaign was, too, and then you have no crook left for whom to vote. I look forward to either your retraction or your announcement that you will not vote for Hillary.

Lalo and Airwon,

I live in Texas. I caucused at my precinct on March 4 and attended my county's Democratic Party convention today.

This video is stupid. And this woman on the video doesn't even make sense.

Here's why the video is stupid:

1) Everyone who caucused on March 4 was very clear about who their presidential preference was. It's ridiculous to think that voters who took the trouble to caucus are going to get confused later about whom they caucused for.

2) Even if this was an actual video of a person from the Obama campaign calling a Clinton delegate, it does not appear that the person on the other end was trying to trick her in to "switching" to Obama. The woman jumped to that conclusion even after the man said no, she shouldn't caucus for Obama. This is the part that doesn't make sense.

3) At the convention today, we precinct caucus delegates had to (once again) prove our eligibility to participate in this Democratic Party process, and (once again) declare our presidential preference. Then, we met with our entire precinct delegation (both Clinton and Obama delegates) because we would be required to caucus ALL TOGETHER as a group to select the ENTIRE PRECINCT'S delegates for the state convention. We ALL sat together at the convention for a few hours before we were allowed to caucus and select our state delegates. During the hours of sitting together, or during the caucus when we selected our precinct's Clinton and Obama delegates to the state convention, if any Clinton delegates had "switched" sides, it would have become glaringly obvious and would have drawn immediate scrutiny from other delegates for the precinct. If anyone had been duped or tricked (again, I cannot believe that this could even be possible) into claiming a presidential preference they didn't really want, it would be revealed and rectified while at the county convention.

Lalo, if you and Airwon want to seize on this video as proof that Obama and his campaign are evil, go ahead. (Where did this thing come from anyway?)

But I think you're being foolish.

I'll assume for the moment that the video wasn't faked by someone anti-Hillary to make her and her campaign look bad.

I'll further assume that it was produced by someone anti-Obama.

The only "evidence" against Obama is the woman's allegation of wrong-doing and her assertion that it reflects on Obama.

The preying expectation with which she listens, hoping to hear something the poor bugger on the other end of the line might say, but never does, is telling.

As is her smugness when he finally hangs up on her.

I would not want to be associated with someone like this.

I was listening to KPFA's Flashpoints programme on Friday. One of the guests was investigative reporter, Robert Perry.

http://consortiumnews.com.

Robert explained how Lee Atwater had helped elect the first Bush. Understanding that there was little to be done about raising Bush's favourability ratings, the objective became that of lowering the favourability ratings of Dukakis, who held a 17-percent lead in early public opinion polls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater

Atwater —> Rove —> Clintons — this has become part of the Clintons' legacy.