Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

If You Can't Win Straight-Up, Sue

Shane-O's picture

From the Fort-Worth Star Telegram:

The Texas Democratic Party is warning that its March 4 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, officials said Thursday night.

...
Democratic sources said representatives from each campaign had made it clear they are keeping all their options open but that the Clinton campaign in particular had warned of an impending lawsuit.

Perhaps we can call in the 2000 Supreme Court and Catherine Harris to sort this one out...

0
No votes yet

Comments

Voodoo Chile's picture
Submitted by Voodoo Chile on

We have election laws and courts to deal with conflicts, so I'm not sure what's with the animosity on this issue. Is she out to maximize her advantages? Yep. Would she be retarded not to? Yep. Does it cross some moral boundary? Not to me.

On top of that, the Texas primary system, like just about all others, is complete bullshit and should be challenged in court.

corinne's picture
Submitted by corinne on

someone would do that:

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.

Another 67 delegates -- more than in many states -- are to be apportioned based on the number of people who participate in the caucuses that begin in more than 8,000 precincts once the polls close at 7 p.m. March 4. (The remaining 35 are so-called superdelegates, or party honchos free to support whomever they choose). The intense competition between Obama and Clinton has made every delegate a precious commodity.

VC is right: with the competition thisclose she'd be stupid not to challenge the process.

Shane-O's picture
Submitted by Shane-O on

Between a lawsuit to enforce the rules and a lawsuit to change the rules.

The Bill of Rights is a born rebel. It reeks with sedition. In every clause it shakes its fist in the face of constituted authority. . . . it is the one guaranty of human freedom to the American people. - Frank Irving Cobb

Voodoo Chile's picture
Submitted by Voodoo Chile on

So who's the change candidate now? =)

Nothing wrong with changing a shitty law. Oh I could reach for so many historical examples, but I'll spare you the hyperbole.

Submitted by lambert on

Seems like The Clinton Rules are fully in action.

If the campaign wasn't doing whatever it is that they're doing, there'd be stories that she was throwing in the towel, or the campaign was incompetent because it was leaving money on the table, and how pissed off the donors are.

In any case, justice is justice, whether the law is being changed or now. Eh? Isn't that why we have a court system?

Then again, she could lay back and enjoy is, like Kerry did. I'm sure that would make the Village happy.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

These are quite helpful because, as I've said, if you want to know what the Obama campaign is doing, just look at whatever they accuse Hillary of doing.

So it looks to me like the Obama campaign is preparing to try to manipulate the caucus part of the Texas primacus (tm someone else) to its benefit. No surprise there.

FYI, Clinton's campaign has denied threatening to sue to change the rules, what they said was that they don't like that the rules are unclear.

And someone is going to have to explain to me AGAIN why progressives and liberals should embrace and defend lousy rules that serve to suppress the participation of democratic voters in the selection process of the democratic nominee just because those rules favor one not-very-progressive candidate over another.

And while that someone is at it, could they please also explain why seeking redress in Court is against liberal ideals as well. I thought we liked the ability for an individual to challenge the system.

I swear this campaign is like being in Wonderland. Up is down. Left is right.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Gore is the one who sued to overturn the Florida results. So, just so you know, Shane-O, in your analogy, Obama is Bush and Clinton is Gore. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Shane-O's picture
Submitted by Shane-O on

Dealing on a higher level of democratic fairness (sorry for the redundancy) -- I can see your points.

Where is the line? The line between philospohical fairness and legal precedent? I certainly don't know.

Might there be an important point in preserving the rules (at the cost of one person), for the sake of preserving a Party? Again, I certainly don't know.

What I do know is that a good portion of our electorate has been upset about manipulation of laws, rules, for nearly eight years. Shall we continue this?

The Bill of Rights is a born rebel. It reeks with sedition. In every clause it shakes its fist in the face of constituted authority. . . . it is the one guaranty of human freedom to the American people. - Frank Irving Cobb

Submitted by lambert on

AP. Here's what the Clinton campaign is saying:

Specifically, Clinton aides questioned a provision allowing caucus attendees to vote to move the location if they choose to do so, and whether people who had cast so-called "provisional ballots" in the primary would have their votes counted in the caucus.

They also expressed concern about the automated phone system precinct chairs would use to call in the results of each caucus, saying the party hadn't yet trained anyone to use the system properly.

If those points are true, they seem reasonable. It isn't as though the caucus system without blemish. (Of course, I do remember the scorched earth tactics Obama used in NH and NV to discredit Hillary's win's in those states, where NV IIRC involved the threat of lawsuits, but of course that's not relevant because Obama plays by the Obama Rules, not the Clinton rules.

Here's Plouffe's response:

"This takes it to a new level, which is they don't want the people who are participating in those caucuses to have their results reported in a timely fashion. And I assume that's a very self-serving decision," Plouffe said.

Nothing substantive, but then we expect that.

Perhaps we should be checking Obama's website?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Shane-O's picture
Submitted by Shane-O on

I specifically called out the 2000 Supreme Court - not the Florida State Supreme Court. The procedural posture can be confusing, but, in the United States Supreme Court, it was Bush who petitioned - not Gore. Thus, "Bush v. Gore."

The Bill of Rights is a born rebel. It reeks with sedition. In every clause it shakes its fist in the face of constituted authority. . . . it is the one guaranty of human freedom to the American people. - Frank Irving Cobb

Voodoo Chile's picture
Submitted by Voodoo Chile on

Where is the line? I would say the line is disenfranchising voters. Making one person's vote count for less than someone else's, not counting their vote at all, raising a high barrier to vote, etc.

In this particular case (Texas Primary), the mixed caucus/ballot system has the effect of disenfranchising ballot voters in comparison to caucus participants. In this particular case, that benefits Obama. In other states or in the general election it might be the opposite.

This lawsuit by Clinton is really nothing at all to get worked up about. If anything, it's a good lawsuit.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

by the whole "the caucusgoers can vote to change the location" thing.

One strongly suspects that the Texas Dem Party picked its caucus sites with the assumption that the race would be over by now -- and a whole lot of sites are not going to be able to handle the crowds -- literally forcing a change in venue (having a fire marshal handy is always a nice touch...)

So what do you know? An Obama supporter just happens to know of a big room available, and nobody else knows of any rooms that are available for sure, and so the Obama suggested room is the one.

And the Obama campaign has graciously provided a number of busses to get people to the new location... but only Obama supporters are given tickets for those busses. Everyone else is left to fend for themselves -- including elderly and/or disabled Clinton supporters who were car-pooled to the original site, and now there aren't enough rides for them.

...and VOILA!!! Instant Obama blowout!

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

lets see now. Shane-O wants 'sources' for stuff that i suspect that the Clinton campaign is concerned about.

Here's a clue, Shane. Its my speculation. I'm the source. And I'd link to my previous post, but that would be merely redundant.

Submitted by lambert on

... then the entire caucus system needs to be abolished. It disenfranchises the poor, those who have to work, those without cars, those with child care issues, the sick, and the elderly.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

I kind of suspect (note to Shane..that's "suspect" not "know") that at least some of what the Clinton camp is doing is setting up the post-election argument (i.e. "the significant difference between the primary and caucus results demonstrate how little all those 'caucus' delegates that Obama has won really mean in terms of actual voter sentiment").

Submitted by lambert on

And you know? They may even be right.

I know at my caucus, for example -- besides the fact that it disenfranchises whole classes of voters, many of whom, demographically, would vote for Hillary -- the whole thing was run by a rank Obama partisan, who made the Hillary supporters come down out of the bleachers, mocked the first-round Kucinich and Edwards supporters, and so forth.

Not, as the talking point propagated by The Boys On the Blogs has it, that the caucuses "don't count"; rather, it's a question of how much they count.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Isn't it important to choose the candidate with the most overzealous, unyielding followers, who want to win at all costs?

I don't mean at all costs. It's not like they'd stoop to trumped up charges of racism, loudly echoing Drudgey Republican talking points, or sink to ageism or misogyny. Not that kind of extreme, of course. But progressives wouldn't do that stuff anyway, as we all know.

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

To the death!

May only the most hopeful survive.

Check out pay-per-view options at DailyKos

Actually, this is exactly what the GE will be like and if Obama Followers soil themselves now when legitimate criticism is leveled at Obama, I cannot imagine the hysteria when smears and innuendo ensnare him.

Shane-O's picture
Submitted by Shane-O on

Do you suspect or know that:

[T]he Obama campaign has graciously provided a number of busses to get people to the new location… but only Obama supporters are given tickets for those busses. Everyone else is left to fend for themselves — including elderly and/or disabled Clinton supporters who were car-pooled to the original site, and now there aren’t enough rides for them.

That was my only question...

The Bill of Rights is a born rebel. It reeks with sedition. In every clause it shakes its fist in the face of constituted authority. . . . it is the one guaranty of human freedom to the American people. - Frank Irving Cobb