Angry Clinton delegates planning protests
By Bud Kennedy - Fort Worth Star Telegram - Aug. 26, 2008
DENVER — In a campaign of firsts, Hillary Clinton finished second.
Some Democrats still don’t believe it. And that includes some Texans who will be listening for guidance when she speaks tonight at the Democratic National Convention.
In 20 months, the New York senator went from being the predicted 44th president of the United States to off the ticket. Now, she is here telling audiences to vote for Barack Obama mainly because he’s a Democrat.
Clinton delegate Pam Durham of Fort Worth isn’t buying.
"Some women still believe that he lied, cheated and stole the election," she said. "A lot of that is probably true."
Whatever happened during the primaries — including a "Texas two-step" caucus now captured in an investigative film documentary — the current Clinton campaign will end Wednesday.
"We’re disappointed," said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, at a party to celebrate the anniversary of the day in 1920 when women won the right to vote.
"We’re very disappointed that she’s not even the vice presidential nominee. We don’t understand that. But we are also far closer than some of us thought possible to seeing a woman president."
Clinton and her followers have spent this week swirling in Mile High melodrama.
First, several Clinton activist groups scheduled a big protest march for today. One group even announced that she would join and speak.
The march is still planned, but without Clinton.
Then, Clinton delegates petitioned for a roll call vote, and some even lobbied superdelegates to reverse votes and nominate her.
As of Monday, Clinton and Obama supposedly had agreed to an abbreviated roll call, letting delegates vote for Clinton but then yielding the nomination.
That is not going to satisfy renegade Clinton supporters, who gathered in a remote warehouse late Sunday night to plan demonstrations.
Their organization is officially the PUMA Political Action Committee. The acronym officially means "People United Means Action," revised from "Party Unity My [Donkey]."
They watched the first cut of a documentary, The Audacity of Democracy, which shows Dallas precinct caucus scenes to allege that Clinton got a raw deal.
Durham, the Fort Worth delegate, was among several quiet Texans in the crowd.
"They’re angry at the corruption in the party," she said, blaming the caucus system and confusion over delegate selection. "I want to put the party back together. But it’s going to take complete honesty and transparency."
Elizabeth McPherson, a retired Tarrant County College instructor and Arlington schoolteacher, came to Denver to march for Clinton.
"I’m mad," she said. "I’m sad. And I’m worried. I think the way they have treated Hillary is terrible. I’ve never felt this insulted and humiliated."
Several women, including Gandy of NOW, noted glumly that Clinton is not even the official keynote speaker Tuesday. She will share billing with Virginia Sen. Mark Warner.
"She’s not even a keynote speaker?" Gandy asked before a reception billed as the Women’s Equali-Tea.
"Exactly what is that about?"
It’s not about winning.
Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram
Wise Women Won't Wait Any More
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Friday, August 22, 2008
Monday, August 18, 2008
Saturday, August 16, 2008
The PUMA conference and its aftermath: renewed reform in the Democratic Party
By ANDY MARTIN - Executive Editor, ContrarianCommentary.com - Aug.15, 2008
"Factually Correct, Not Politically Correct"
OBAMA AUTHOR ANDY MARTIN ATTENDS A "PUMA" CONFERENCE AND FINDS A NASCENT REFORM MOVEMENT IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
(NEW YORK)(August 15, 2008) Last weekend I spent three days at a conference sponsored by a maverick group of dissident Democrats. The "PUMA" conference was held in a nondescript Washington suburban motel. I was writing a new essay on the history of reform in the Democratic Party over the past 80 years; the PUMA's appealed to me as exemplars of reform and dissent (the column is still not finished). I was asked not to write about the conference until after the proceedings were completed and I complied with that embargo.
Little did I realize that crackpot left-wingers and right-wingers would be attacking this placid and almost tranquil conference as a hotbed of radicalism. Nothing could have been further from the truth. The Huffington Post also sent one of their acolytes to attend; she was so inept she didn't even know where the conference was being held. I also became the target of vicious and irrational attacks from people who were not there.
On reflection, the desire of the organizers to close the meeting to news media appears sensible. I was happy to be the only media presence in attendance.
I am now convinced the PUMA movement is morphing into something vastly more influential than I realized, all due to the hysteria of the left and right. Here's a little background.
Every day we get hundreds of e-mails from all sorts of sources. Our job at ContrarianCommentary.com is to make sense of this mélange, and to sort the wheat from the chaff. We do a pretty good job of doing just that. As a result of being fair to both conservatives and liberals we also receive input from all types of sources and channels. The result is that we are usually a week to ten days ahead of our competitors in the mainstream media.
For example, the now legendary cell phone video of Hillary Clinton seeking to have her name placed in nomination for "catharsis" reached my desk within hours; it took the mainstream media ten days to get the same material and realize its significance. I attended the PUMA conference in a spirit of inquiry.
Some writers have sought to ridicule the meeting for a variety of perceived failures. On the contrary, the meeting was an extraordinary event and highly successful.
First, the meeting was national. People came from across the United States. It's not easy to create a national movement overnight. PUMA's have accomplished something very challenging when they convince people from coast to coast to assemble in one place.
Second, the PUMA movement provided "cover" for the ultimately successful efforts to have Hillary Clinton's name placed in nomination. PUMAs were even more successful than any Clinton supporter could have predicted.
Third, as in the case of most political meetings, much of the "content" was boring, organizational, and basic politics. Although David Shuster (sitting in on MSNBC's Hardball) tried to suggest PUMA was a Republican "front," I saw no evidence of that fact. The attendance was primarily, though not exclusively, composed of women who had hitherto been loyal Democrats.
Fourth, although hostile bloggers have criticized the TV presence of PUMA representatives, the PUMA media techniques are not a concern. The people involved are amateurs. They are not professional politicians and they are not professional media types. They are going to have rough edges. They are not going to be smooth and polished.
Fifth, the Democrats are taking "women" for granted because of some of the loonier planks of the Republican Party platform. But in an election where Democrats are likely to retain congress, Democratic women maybe much more inclined to stray to McCain when they know he will be hemmed in by a solidly Democratic congress. The women I saw at the PUMA conference are being discounted and underestimated, and they don't like it.
I attended my first Democratic National Convention forty (40) years ago, in Chicago. I saw the chaos on the streets. Today, the Internet, cell phones, digital cameras, blogs and the paraphernalia of the i-pod generation have largely supplanted street protests. But people are more powerful in 2008 than they were in 1968. I have not seen anything since 1968 with the gathering storm potential of 2008.
Well, what is happening and what does PUMA represent?
First, PUMA activity is a quintessential example of the "aggregating" power of the Internet. People across the United States are linked in a network that, however rudimentary and preliminary it may appear to outsiders, is gaining strength and managed to assemble a national turnout.
Second, there is a nascent reform movement in the Democratic Party. The "outsiders" may ridicule PUMA, but something happened this week to afford Clinton a name on the convention ballot as well as a prime-time speaking engagement. Dick Morris on Hannity and Colmes called these concessions an Obama disaster. Why did Obama's people give in? They realize that there is sustained opposition out there. PUMA's may not have the internal party power to have a conventional impact, but they can act as a focal point for others to concentrate their own energy and opposition.
Third, the PUMA movement is going to be extraordinarily well-organized and powerfully connected in Denver. The right/left wing bloggers and mainstream media may claim that PUMA's are "small in number." That's not a problem. Small groups can function with lethal impact. Just ask the Green Beret (12-man) "A" teams.
Fourth, PUMAS are going to Denver to be heard. I will also be in Denver to observe and report. I was initially a little concerned about spending three days in Washington; now that I have seen the developments of this week, I am absolutely glad I attended.
Fifth, with time and exposure and experience, amateurs become more professional and more effective. That will no doubt happen with the PUMA movement. It has happened to every party reform movement in the past.
Sixth, the process by which Barack Obama claimed the nomination, namely a skewed delegate system that underweights big states and overweights small states, is a disgrace to democracy. The caucus system is rife with corruption and cronyism. There is no way Obama would have won in a race where Ohio and Pennsylvania had the proportional impact with Idaho and Kansas. The current proportional allocation system leads to an undemocratic and disproportionate result. There will be reform of the Democratic Party; PUMA activists could help spearhead it.
---------------------------------------------------
FULL DISCLOSURE: I have decided to oppose Barack Obama's election and have become Executive Director of The Stop Obama Coalition, http://StopObamaCoalition.com. By default, I have become the national leader of the anti-Obama movement. I am not acting as either a Democrat or Republican. I have had no contact whatsoever with the McCain Campaign. I am not a member of any political organization. The views express are entirely independent. I am acting as an American citizen who sincerely believes Obama is not the man we need in the Oval Office. We are going to run a very dynamic and aggressive campaign against Obama. I will continue to write my columns for ContrarianCommentary.com.
--------------------------------------------------
Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of www.ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin comments on regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. His columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com;
Andy is the author of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, published in July 2008, see http://www.OrangeStatePress.com. MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com
"Factually Correct, Not Politically Correct"
OBAMA AUTHOR ANDY MARTIN ATTENDS A "PUMA" CONFERENCE AND FINDS A NASCENT REFORM MOVEMENT IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
(NEW YORK)(August 15, 2008) Last weekend I spent three days at a conference sponsored by a maverick group of dissident Democrats. The "PUMA" conference was held in a nondescript Washington suburban motel. I was writing a new essay on the history of reform in the Democratic Party over the past 80 years; the PUMA's appealed to me as exemplars of reform and dissent (the column is still not finished). I was asked not to write about the conference until after the proceedings were completed and I complied with that embargo.
Little did I realize that crackpot left-wingers and right-wingers would be attacking this placid and almost tranquil conference as a hotbed of radicalism. Nothing could have been further from the truth. The Huffington Post also sent one of their acolytes to attend; she was so inept she didn't even know where the conference was being held. I also became the target of vicious and irrational attacks from people who were not there.
On reflection, the desire of the organizers to close the meeting to news media appears sensible. I was happy to be the only media presence in attendance.
I am now convinced the PUMA movement is morphing into something vastly more influential than I realized, all due to the hysteria of the left and right. Here's a little background.
Every day we get hundreds of e-mails from all sorts of sources. Our job at ContrarianCommentary.com is to make sense of this mélange, and to sort the wheat from the chaff. We do a pretty good job of doing just that. As a result of being fair to both conservatives and liberals we also receive input from all types of sources and channels. The result is that we are usually a week to ten days ahead of our competitors in the mainstream media.
For example, the now legendary cell phone video of Hillary Clinton seeking to have her name placed in nomination for "catharsis" reached my desk within hours; it took the mainstream media ten days to get the same material and realize its significance. I attended the PUMA conference in a spirit of inquiry.
Some writers have sought to ridicule the meeting for a variety of perceived failures. On the contrary, the meeting was an extraordinary event and highly successful.
First, the meeting was national. People came from across the United States. It's not easy to create a national movement overnight. PUMA's have accomplished something very challenging when they convince people from coast to coast to assemble in one place.
Second, the PUMA movement provided "cover" for the ultimately successful efforts to have Hillary Clinton's name placed in nomination. PUMAs were even more successful than any Clinton supporter could have predicted.
Third, as in the case of most political meetings, much of the "content" was boring, organizational, and basic politics. Although David Shuster (sitting in on MSNBC's Hardball) tried to suggest PUMA was a Republican "front," I saw no evidence of that fact. The attendance was primarily, though not exclusively, composed of women who had hitherto been loyal Democrats.
Fourth, although hostile bloggers have criticized the TV presence of PUMA representatives, the PUMA media techniques are not a concern. The people involved are amateurs. They are not professional politicians and they are not professional media types. They are going to have rough edges. They are not going to be smooth and polished.
Fifth, the Democrats are taking "women" for granted because of some of the loonier planks of the Republican Party platform. But in an election where Democrats are likely to retain congress, Democratic women maybe much more inclined to stray to McCain when they know he will be hemmed in by a solidly Democratic congress. The women I saw at the PUMA conference are being discounted and underestimated, and they don't like it.
I attended my first Democratic National Convention forty (40) years ago, in Chicago. I saw the chaos on the streets. Today, the Internet, cell phones, digital cameras, blogs and the paraphernalia of the i-pod generation have largely supplanted street protests. But people are more powerful in 2008 than they were in 1968. I have not seen anything since 1968 with the gathering storm potential of 2008.
Well, what is happening and what does PUMA represent?
First, PUMA activity is a quintessential example of the "aggregating" power of the Internet. People across the United States are linked in a network that, however rudimentary and preliminary it may appear to outsiders, is gaining strength and managed to assemble a national turnout.
Second, there is a nascent reform movement in the Democratic Party. The "outsiders" may ridicule PUMA, but something happened this week to afford Clinton a name on the convention ballot as well as a prime-time speaking engagement. Dick Morris on Hannity and Colmes called these concessions an Obama disaster. Why did Obama's people give in? They realize that there is sustained opposition out there. PUMA's may not have the internal party power to have a conventional impact, but they can act as a focal point for others to concentrate their own energy and opposition.
Third, the PUMA movement is going to be extraordinarily well-organized and powerfully connected in Denver. The right/left wing bloggers and mainstream media may claim that PUMA's are "small in number." That's not a problem. Small groups can function with lethal impact. Just ask the Green Beret (12-man) "A" teams.
Fourth, PUMAS are going to Denver to be heard. I will also be in Denver to observe and report. I was initially a little concerned about spending three days in Washington; now that I have seen the developments of this week, I am absolutely glad I attended.
Fifth, with time and exposure and experience, amateurs become more professional and more effective. That will no doubt happen with the PUMA movement. It has happened to every party reform movement in the past.
Sixth, the process by which Barack Obama claimed the nomination, namely a skewed delegate system that underweights big states and overweights small states, is a disgrace to democracy. The caucus system is rife with corruption and cronyism. There is no way Obama would have won in a race where Ohio and Pennsylvania had the proportional impact with Idaho and Kansas. The current proportional allocation system leads to an undemocratic and disproportionate result. There will be reform of the Democratic Party; PUMA activists could help spearhead it.
---------------------------------------------------
FULL DISCLOSURE: I have decided to oppose Barack Obama's election and have become Executive Director of The Stop Obama Coalition, http://StopObamaCoalition.com. By default, I have become the national leader of the anti-Obama movement. I am not acting as either a Democrat or Republican. I have had no contact whatsoever with the McCain Campaign. I am not a member of any political organization. The views express are entirely independent. I am acting as an American citizen who sincerely believes Obama is not the man we need in the Oval Office. We are going to run a very dynamic and aggressive campaign against Obama. I will continue to write my columns for ContrarianCommentary.com.
--------------------------------------------------
Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of www.ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin comments on regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. His columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com;
Andy is the author of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, published in July 2008, see http://www.OrangeStatePress.com. MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Clinton To Be Nominated At Convention - It's official.
By Elizabeth Benjamin - The NY Daily News - August 14, 2008
Word that a deal had been reached between the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama campaigns to put both of their names into nomination at the convention in Denver has been percolating around the Web all morning.
Now there's a joint statement from the Obama and Clinton press offices that confirms the agreement.
Read more in The NY Daily News - Daily Politics
Clinton Will Be Nominated
by Steve Kornacki - The Politicker - August 14, 2008
Read more in The Politicker
Word that a deal had been reached between the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama campaigns to put both of their names into nomination at the convention in Denver has been percolating around the Web all morning.
Now there's a joint statement from the Obama and Clinton press offices that confirms the agreement.
Since June, Senators Obama and Clinton have been working together to ensure a Democratic victory this November. They are both committed to winning back the White House and to to ensuring that the voices of all 35 million people who participated in this historic primary election are respected and heard in Denver.
To honor and celebrate these voices and votes, both Senator Obama's and Senator Clinton's names will be placed in nomination.“I am convinced that honoring Senator Clinton's historic campaign in this way will help us celebrate this defining moment in our history and bring the party together in a strong united fashion,” said Senator Barack Obama.
Senator Obama’s campaign encouraged Senator Clinton's name to be placed in nomination as a show of unity and in recognition of the historic race she ran and the fact that she was the first woman to compete in all of our nation’s primary contests.“With every voice heard and the Party strongly united, we will elect Senator Obama President of the United States and put our nation on the path to peace and prosperity once again,” said Senator Hillary Clinton.
Senator Obama and Senator Clinton are looking forward to a convention unified behind Barack Obama as the Party’s nominee and to victory this fall for America.
Read more in The NY Daily News - Daily Politics
Clinton Will Be Nominated
by Steve Kornacki - The Politicker - August 14, 2008
Per Marc Ambinder, we now have formal word of an agreement between the Clinton and Obama campaigns that calls for both candidates’ names to be placed in nomination at the convention in order to “honor and celebrate” all of their supporters, according to a joint statement.
As I wrote yesterday, the Obama campaign didn’t have much choice here. The official purpose of a convention is to nominate a presidential candidate, and that can only be done two ways: by acclimation or by a roll call of the states.
If the Obama campaign had gone the acclimation route (as a way of avoiding a formal vote in which hundreds of Clinton delegates might dissent), the protests from Clinton’s die-hard delegates (there are many of them) would be deafening and would produce video clips that would be played over and over, completely defeating the purpose of an acclimation motion.
That left the roll call option, which is traditionally used (even when the nominee is unopposed). But even if Clinton had – as the Obama campaign would have liked – instructed her delegates not to nominate her (and refused to consent to being nominated if they went ahead and did so anyway), it would still be permissible for her delegates to vote for her in the roll call of the states. One way or another, the Clinton delegates who want to vote for her were going to be heard. With this compromise, the Obama campaign is finally recognizing this.
Now the questions will begin: Will Hillary explicitly urge her delegates to vote for Obama anyway, as a show of unity? And how many of them will listen if she does? And will any of this mollify the PUMA crowd, some of whom are still talking of wresting the nomination for Clinton in Denver? And, perhaps most importantly: Will we be talking about any of this once the convention is over?
Read more in The Politicker
Who's Race Baiting?
Crossposted on Daily Kos
By Faith Chatham - August 14, 2008
Why just "black" churches.... why not churches?
Why pit a white church leader against a black church leader?
How unifiying is this?
Yes, the clips are taken out of context but they reflect attitudes.
Why don't we see photos of the Obama children with their white grandmother?
She reared Barack and paid his private school tuition but seem to be far back in the closet during his campaign for president.
Does the "multicultural" candidate aviod photos with his white relatives because he playing more to the African American voters?
Far down in the comments on this journal someone posted a link to Obama's Scrapbook. It has many photos of him with his mom and grandparents. It is a wonderful scrapbook. I'm glad that it was shared with us.Obama's Scrapbook
I have personally witnessed more racist, intimidation, harassing actions during this election cycle than I have witnessed in decades. I know that when we were Jesse Jackson delegates, the candidate instructed delegates how to conduct ourselves. Being respectful was stressed and it came from the top down.
This year every African American Hillary Clinton supporter I know has told me about being called "Uncle Tom" or other names by Obama supporters. The number of threats and insults hurled at African Americans who were not Obama supporters is appalling. Obviously the message to be respectful did not go from the top to the bottom of a very effective top down campaign.
One of my friends, a petite, non aggressive, very genteel African American business woman, has been assaulted by black and white Obama supporters because she was seen wearing a campaign button of another candidate. She was threatened by a black preacher and was followed through a department store by four thuggish young men calling her "b" and "W" and other insults because of her political button. The security guard escorted her out to her car for her protection.
A few weeks ago while I was on the phone with her, she was in the check out lane of another store when two white Obama supporters saw the American flags on her fingernails. The women liked them and were complimenting them until they saw the "non Obama" candidates' name on the other nail. One woman hauled off and socked my friend really hard. My friend told me that she rolled up her fist and "I socked her right back as hard as I could."
The elephant in the living room which no one wants to acknowledge is the failure of Senator Obama to set a tone in this campaign which is respectful and inclusive for all Americans, no matter which candidate they support and to demand that his supporters treat other candidates' supporters respectfully.
Voter intimidation and harassment is unacceptable no matter which candidate it benefits. We've worked very hard and paid a high price to move beyond where we were. This race, which should uplift us all, in my opinion, feeds racial discord and discrimination more than it unites us. The candidate needs to do more.
This year was the first time I've ever seen a Democratic Convention surrogate for a candidate be booed because they appeared for the candidate. At both the Sen. 10 and Sen. 9 Conventions in Tarrant County Obama delegates booed the speaker who spoke for Senator Clinton. He said nothing critical of Senator Obama. However, the attitude as far back as the Senatorial Conventions was that no other candidate should be given voice. This is what feeds the low poll numbers for the candidate now. People who are treated disrespectfully and unfairly do not run to embrace those who disrespect and treat them unfairly.
Another account:
A notarized affidavit of a challenge filed from a registered Democratic voter in Precinct 225 in Denton County, Texas states:
The Denton County Democratic voter continued:
By Faith Chatham - August 14, 2008
Why just "black" churches.... why not churches?
Why pit a white church leader against a black church leader?
How unifiying is this?
Yes, the clips are taken out of context but they reflect attitudes.
Why don't we see photos of the Obama children with their white grandmother?
She reared Barack and paid his private school tuition but seem to be far back in the closet during his campaign for president.
Does the "multicultural" candidate aviod photos with his white relatives because he playing more to the African American voters?
Far down in the comments on this journal someone posted a link to Obama's Scrapbook. It has many photos of him with his mom and grandparents. It is a wonderful scrapbook. I'm glad that it was shared with us.Obama's Scrapbook
I have personally witnessed more racist, intimidation, harassing actions during this election cycle than I have witnessed in decades. I know that when we were Jesse Jackson delegates, the candidate instructed delegates how to conduct ourselves. Being respectful was stressed and it came from the top down.
This year every African American Hillary Clinton supporter I know has told me about being called "Uncle Tom" or other names by Obama supporters. The number of threats and insults hurled at African Americans who were not Obama supporters is appalling. Obviously the message to be respectful did not go from the top to the bottom of a very effective top down campaign.
One of my friends, a petite, non aggressive, very genteel African American business woman, has been assaulted by black and white Obama supporters because she was seen wearing a campaign button of another candidate. She was threatened by a black preacher and was followed through a department store by four thuggish young men calling her "b" and "W" and other insults because of her political button. The security guard escorted her out to her car for her protection.
A few weeks ago while I was on the phone with her, she was in the check out lane of another store when two white Obama supporters saw the American flags on her fingernails. The women liked them and were complimenting them until they saw the "non Obama" candidates' name on the other nail. One woman hauled off and socked my friend really hard. My friend told me that she rolled up her fist and "I socked her right back as hard as I could."
The elephant in the living room which no one wants to acknowledge is the failure of Senator Obama to set a tone in this campaign which is respectful and inclusive for all Americans, no matter which candidate they support and to demand that his supporters treat other candidates' supporters respectfully.
Voter intimidation and harassment is unacceptable no matter which candidate it benefits. We've worked very hard and paid a high price to move beyond where we were. This race, which should uplift us all, in my opinion, feeds racial discord and discrimination more than it unites us. The candidate needs to do more.
This year was the first time I've ever seen a Democratic Convention surrogate for a candidate be booed because they appeared for the candidate. At both the Sen. 10 and Sen. 9 Conventions in Tarrant County Obama delegates booed the speaker who spoke for Senator Clinton. He said nothing critical of Senator Obama. However, the attitude as far back as the Senatorial Conventions was that no other candidate should be given voice. This is what feeds the low poll numbers for the candidate now. People who are treated disrespectfully and unfairly do not run to embrace those who disrespect and treat them unfairly.
Another account:
A notarized affidavit of a challenge filed from a registered Democratic voter in Precinct 225 in Denton County, Texas states:
The caucus for precinct 225, Senate District 9 was grossly unorganized and very time consuming. We were forced to stand outside in the dark and cold for 3.5 hours. Obama supporters for precinct 225 had gathered before the primary voting had been completed and segregated themselves away from anyone who was not supporting their candidate. I was told by an African American man holding the sign up for precinct 225 that I could not stand with the group because I was not supporting Obama. These people used intimidation and segregation as a method of showing the “non-Obama” supporters that we were not wanted.
I did not know where else to go; I thought the process was for everyone from precinct 225, no matter their preference for presidential nominee. I walked through the crowd and met Hillary supporters who were going home because they had been told it (the precinct convention) was over by the Obama group leaders. The Hillary supporters also told me that they were very uncomfortable and concerned for their safety if they stayed.
The police were called to control the crowd because people were yelling that “the white man was trying to make their vote not count” and banging on the windows of the church where the primary was being held. I was verbally abused by two black women, on separate occasions for tying to oversee the voting process. Again they were yelling at the top of their voices and swinging their arms in the air , that I (because I am white) would not keep them from voting and choosing a black man for president.
I was the secretary for the caucus and I was told by a black man (who refused to identify himself) and who was the leader for the Obama supporters of precinct 225 that I was slowing the process down, when I tried to verify voter qualifications. I saw Obama supporters sign the sheet more than once per person. I was pushed and yelled at, but did not try to force the issue for my own safety. I reminded these people that we were neighbors and on the same side as Democrats, but I was quickly told that we had nothing in common, because I was “a white girl.”
The Denton County Democratic voter continued:
I believe that precinct 225 had invalid signatures and is not truly reflective of my community’s wishes for the next presidential candidate. Almost all of the supporters for Hillary had been forced to leave before the actual signing of the sheets, and this is unfortunate and distorts the truth of the totals attending and is not the true democratic process. The Hillary supporters that refused to let overbearing and confrontational behavior scare them away and actually stayed, were physically pushed out of the way, and out of the line at the signing table. Bullying and thuggery behavior by Obama supporters was rampant and organized. Organized specifically to keep Hillary supporters, black or white, from participating in the democratic process.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
BOUGHT AND PAID FOR!
By Lynette Long, PhD
As Americans sat glued to their television sets watching the most hotly contested presidential primary in American history, pundits counted pledged delegates won in caucuses and primaries and discussed the highly prized superdelegates' endorsements. Eventually it would be these superdelegates, Democratic officials, governors, and members of congress, who would determine the nominee, since neither contestant won enough pledged delegates in the 52 primary contests. What the pundits forgot to tell the American public was that these superdelegates were doing some counting of their own. They weren't counting how many of their constituents had voted for Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, but rather how much money was being put into their war chests by the Obama campaign and the Democratic hierarchy. This money, moved from one candidate to another via PAC's, would determine their endorsements and ultimately the nomination.
Since 1987, Nancy Pelosi has represented California's eighth district-- including most of San Francisco. An Italian American, Pelosi was raised on politics. Her father was a Congressman from Maryland and the Mayor of Baltimore. Pelosi was elected as Democratic Speaker of the House 2002. Pelosi shattered the glass ceiling in the House of Representatives when she was elected the first female speaker in 2007. A shrewd politician, Madame Speaker exercises a lot of influence over the members of congress. She determines Committee assignments and in conjunction with the DNC and Howard Dean decides how much money and support the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee gives to each member of congress in their bid for re-election.
In addition, Pelosi also contributes money directly to the congressional campaigns of certain candidates through her Political Action Committee "PAC to the FUTURE." Her PAC receives money from other PAC' s such as Service Employees International Union $10,000, American Bankers Assn $10,000, Sheet Metal Workers Union $10,000, International Association of Fire Fighters, $10,000, and Goldman Sachs 10,000. It also receives money from individuals. In the 2008 election cycle, the Center for Responsive Politics (www.opensecrets.org) reports that Nancy Pelosi's PAC received 585,400 and contributed more than $445,000 of this to 59 congressional candidates. PAC to the FUTURE gave money to 38 incumbents and 21 challengers. Of the 435 members in the house, Pelosi gave money to 8.5% of them. Of the members who received money from Pelosi, 71% were men; only 29% were women. Only eleven percent of the female members of congress received support from Pelosi's PAC. It's disappointing that a female speaker did not symbolically make some contribution to all Democratic women in the house.
But even more important than the gender implications of Pelosi's behavior was her impact on the Presidential election. Publically Madame Speaker did not endorse either Obama or Clinton in the Democratic Primary, but was she was anything but neutral. Pelosi gave money to the campaigns of thirty-eight members of congress, twenty-eight of these endorsed Obama; ten endorsed Clinton. Pelosi contributed to the campaigns of Obama endorsers almost three to one. Pelosi not only gave to a greater number of Obama supporters, she collectively gave them more money. Pelosi gave 250,000 to the campaigns of superdelegates that endorsed Obama and only 80,000 to the campaigns of superdelegates that endorsed Clinton. Money talks and Pelosi and her PAC spoke volumes….in shorthand. She may not have publicly endorsed a candidate, but the members of the House of Representatives knew she supported Obama.
Of the thirty-eight Members of Congress Pelosi gave money to, sixteen went against the grain for Obama. This means, their state voted for Hillary, their district voted for Hillary, yet they endorsed Obama. Why? Follow the money.
JOHN ALDER (NJ) $2500 from PELOSI
ALDER endorses OBAMA
JASON ALTMIRE (PA) $10k FROM PELOSI
ALTMIRE endorses OBAMA
ANDRE CARSON (IN) $10k FROM PELOSI
CARSON endorses OBAMA
JOE DONNELLY (IN) $10k FROM PELOSI
DONNNELLY endorses OBAMA
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS (AZ) $10k FROM PELOSI
GIFFORDS endorses OBAMA
BARON HILL (IN) $10k FROM PELOSI
HILL endorses OBAMA
RON KLEIN (FL) $10k FROM PELOSI
KLEIN endorses OBAMA
NICK LAMPSON (TX) $7500 FROM PELOSI
LAMPSON endorses OBAMA
TIM MAHONEY (FL) $10k FROM PELOSI
MAHONEY endorses OBAMA
JERRY MCNERNEY (CA) $10 FROM PELOSI
MCNERNEY endorses OBAMA
HARRY MITCHELL (AZ) $10k FROM PELOSI
MITCHELL endorses OBAMA
PATRICK MURPHY (PA) $10k FROM PELOSI
MURPHY endorses OBAMA
JOE SESTAK (PA) $10k FROM PELOSI
SESTAK endorses OBAMA
CAROL SHEA PORTER (NH) $10k FROM PELOSI
SHEA PORTER endorses OBAMA
ZACHARY SPACE (OH) $10k FROM PELOSI
SPACE endorses OBAMA
NIKI TSONGAS (MA) $10k FROM PELOSI
TSONGAS endorses OBAMA
By endorsing Obama, all of these Members of Congress went against the will of their constituents, twice, at the state level and at the district level. Only two members who received money from Pelosi's PAC went against the grain and endorsed Hillary. Is sixteen against the grain for Hillary and two against the grain for Obama a coincidence? Pelosi's contributions to the campaigns of state representatives followed a similar pattern. Sixty-three percent of the state representatives to whom Pelosi gave money, endorsed Obama in a state won by Clinton.
Ten thousand dollars, PAC to the FUTURE's typical contribution, doesn't seem like a lot of money but besides getting money from PAC TO THE FUTURE, most of these members got contributions from other PACs. These contributions were most likely orchestrated by Pelosi and company since the overlap is too startling. Congressman James Clyburn from South Carolina has BRIDGE PAC. BRIDGE PAC gave money to all but two of these same members of congress. Steny Hoyer from Maryland has AMERIPAC. AMERIPAC gave money to almost every single one of these same members of congress. Typical donations from both of these PAC'S were $10,000. And then there is the NATIONAL LEADERSHIP PAC and the NEW DEMOCRAT COALITION, and of course there is the HOPE FUND owned by Barack Obama. All of these PAC's donated an average of $10,000 to most of their campaigns. These young representatives got a lot of pressure to endorse Obama no matter which way their district or state voted. The voices of their constituents were irrelevant.
It seems Obama was just posing as a Washington outsider. But in reality—all the real Washington insiders Pelosi, Dean, Kennedy, Clyburn, Hoyer, and Kerry were on his team all along. Pelosi's Pac might be named PAC to the Future, but it took direct action to purposely undermine the first significant female candidate for the presidency in history. In so doing, she pushed women back decades. Call Pelosi's office at 415-556-4862 and let her know how you feel.
As Americans sat glued to their television sets watching the most hotly contested presidential primary in American history, pundits counted pledged delegates won in caucuses and primaries and discussed the highly prized superdelegates' endorsements. Eventually it would be these superdelegates, Democratic officials, governors, and members of congress, who would determine the nominee, since neither contestant won enough pledged delegates in the 52 primary contests. What the pundits forgot to tell the American public was that these superdelegates were doing some counting of their own. They weren't counting how many of their constituents had voted for Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, but rather how much money was being put into their war chests by the Obama campaign and the Democratic hierarchy. This money, moved from one candidate to another via PAC's, would determine their endorsements and ultimately the nomination.
Since 1987, Nancy Pelosi has represented California's eighth district-- including most of San Francisco. An Italian American, Pelosi was raised on politics. Her father was a Congressman from Maryland and the Mayor of Baltimore. Pelosi was elected as Democratic Speaker of the House 2002. Pelosi shattered the glass ceiling in the House of Representatives when she was elected the first female speaker in 2007. A shrewd politician, Madame Speaker exercises a lot of influence over the members of congress. She determines Committee assignments and in conjunction with the DNC and Howard Dean decides how much money and support the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee gives to each member of congress in their bid for re-election.
In addition, Pelosi also contributes money directly to the congressional campaigns of certain candidates through her Political Action Committee "PAC to the FUTURE." Her PAC receives money from other PAC' s such as Service Employees International Union $10,000, American Bankers Assn $10,000, Sheet Metal Workers Union $10,000, International Association of Fire Fighters, $10,000, and Goldman Sachs 10,000. It also receives money from individuals. In the 2008 election cycle, the Center for Responsive Politics (www.opensecrets.org) reports that Nancy Pelosi's PAC received 585,400 and contributed more than $445,000 of this to 59 congressional candidates. PAC to the FUTURE gave money to 38 incumbents and 21 challengers. Of the 435 members in the house, Pelosi gave money to 8.5% of them. Of the members who received money from Pelosi, 71% were men; only 29% were women. Only eleven percent of the female members of congress received support from Pelosi's PAC. It's disappointing that a female speaker did not symbolically make some contribution to all Democratic women in the house.
But even more important than the gender implications of Pelosi's behavior was her impact on the Presidential election. Publically Madame Speaker did not endorse either Obama or Clinton in the Democratic Primary, but was she was anything but neutral. Pelosi gave money to the campaigns of thirty-eight members of congress, twenty-eight of these endorsed Obama; ten endorsed Clinton. Pelosi contributed to the campaigns of Obama endorsers almost three to one. Pelosi not only gave to a greater number of Obama supporters, she collectively gave them more money. Pelosi gave 250,000 to the campaigns of superdelegates that endorsed Obama and only 80,000 to the campaigns of superdelegates that endorsed Clinton. Money talks and Pelosi and her PAC spoke volumes….in shorthand. She may not have publicly endorsed a candidate, but the members of the House of Representatives knew she supported Obama.
Of the thirty-eight Members of Congress Pelosi gave money to, sixteen went against the grain for Obama. This means, their state voted for Hillary, their district voted for Hillary, yet they endorsed Obama. Why? Follow the money.
JOHN ALDER (NJ) $2500 from PELOSI
ALDER endorses OBAMA
JASON ALTMIRE (PA) $10k FROM PELOSI
ALTMIRE endorses OBAMA
ANDRE CARSON (IN) $10k FROM PELOSI
CARSON endorses OBAMA
JOE DONNELLY (IN) $10k FROM PELOSI
DONNNELLY endorses OBAMA
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS (AZ) $10k FROM PELOSI
GIFFORDS endorses OBAMA
BARON HILL (IN) $10k FROM PELOSI
HILL endorses OBAMA
RON KLEIN (FL) $10k FROM PELOSI
KLEIN endorses OBAMA
NICK LAMPSON (TX) $7500 FROM PELOSI
LAMPSON endorses OBAMA
TIM MAHONEY (FL) $10k FROM PELOSI
MAHONEY endorses OBAMA
JERRY MCNERNEY (CA) $10 FROM PELOSI
MCNERNEY endorses OBAMA
HARRY MITCHELL (AZ) $10k FROM PELOSI
MITCHELL endorses OBAMA
PATRICK MURPHY (PA) $10k FROM PELOSI
MURPHY endorses OBAMA
JOE SESTAK (PA) $10k FROM PELOSI
SESTAK endorses OBAMA
CAROL SHEA PORTER (NH) $10k FROM PELOSI
SHEA PORTER endorses OBAMA
ZACHARY SPACE (OH) $10k FROM PELOSI
SPACE endorses OBAMA
NIKI TSONGAS (MA) $10k FROM PELOSI
TSONGAS endorses OBAMA
By endorsing Obama, all of these Members of Congress went against the will of their constituents, twice, at the state level and at the district level. Only two members who received money from Pelosi's PAC went against the grain and endorsed Hillary. Is sixteen against the grain for Hillary and two against the grain for Obama a coincidence? Pelosi's contributions to the campaigns of state representatives followed a similar pattern. Sixty-three percent of the state representatives to whom Pelosi gave money, endorsed Obama in a state won by Clinton.
Ten thousand dollars, PAC to the FUTURE's typical contribution, doesn't seem like a lot of money but besides getting money from PAC TO THE FUTURE, most of these members got contributions from other PACs. These contributions were most likely orchestrated by Pelosi and company since the overlap is too startling. Congressman James Clyburn from South Carolina has BRIDGE PAC. BRIDGE PAC gave money to all but two of these same members of congress. Steny Hoyer from Maryland has AMERIPAC. AMERIPAC gave money to almost every single one of these same members of congress. Typical donations from both of these PAC'S were $10,000. And then there is the NATIONAL LEADERSHIP PAC and the NEW DEMOCRAT COALITION, and of course there is the HOPE FUND owned by Barack Obama. All of these PAC's donated an average of $10,000 to most of their campaigns. These young representatives got a lot of pressure to endorse Obama no matter which way their district or state voted. The voices of their constituents were irrelevant.
It seems Obama was just posing as a Washington outsider. But in reality—all the real Washington insiders Pelosi, Dean, Kennedy, Clyburn, Hoyer, and Kerry were on his team all along. Pelosi's Pac might be named PAC to the Future, but it took direct action to purposely undermine the first significant female candidate for the presidency in history. In so doing, she pushed women back decades. Call Pelosi's office at 415-556-4862 and let her know how you feel.
All Votes Don't Count Equally in Texas
Crossposted on DAILY KOS
By Faith Chatham - DFWRCC - Aug. 10, 2008
"Overwhelmed", "chaotic", and "not complying with the election code or Texas Democratic Party Rules" is how many Texas Democratic Precinct and Senatorial Convention attendees describe the Texas Two-Step. Texas is the only state to apportion part (2/3rd) of their national presidential pledged delegates by the results of the Democratic Primary and the rest (1/3) by sign-ins at precinct convention caucuses.
This year 2.8 Texans voted in the Democratic Primary (2,874,986) for every registered voter who attended a Democratic Precinct Convention/Caucus. Only 1,000,000 Texans signed-in at Precinct Conventions to select the remaining 1/3 of the delegates.
If all the delegates had been selected using the percentage of vote cast in the Primary for each candidate, Senator Clinton would have 10 more national delegates than Senator Obama. However, because the percentage of sign-ins per candidate distributes 1/3 of the delegates based on the sign-in presidential preference of the 1,000,000 precinct convention attendees, after primary and convention numbers are tallied, Texas will be sending 5 more delegates pledged to Senator Obama than the number going for Senator Clinton. With nearly three Texans voting in the primary for every Texan attending the precinct conventions, many people think that the preferences of the majority of Texas Democratics should not be overruled by the preferences of many fewer convention attendees.
The Texas Secretary of State's Election Office received few reports of glitches in the Primary Election this year in which 2/3rd of the pledged presidential delegates were selected. However, the Democratic Party Credentials Committee received many complaints (challenges) documenting flawed flawed precinct and senatorial conventions where the remaining 1/3 of the pledged presidential delegates are chosen.
The Texas Democratic Party attempts to address and remedy irregularites in convention voting procedures. This year many senatorial district credentials committees and the Texas State Democratic Credentials Committee reported that they were unable to remedy many of the procedural challenges they reviewed.
Even if the precinct conventions business had been conducted flawlessly, the Texas 2-Step Hybrid Primary/Precinct Convention Caucus system of apportioning national pledged presidential delegates would still discriminate against many Texas registered voters.
>
NEWS 8 AUSTIN Texas 2 step West committee
Selection of 2/3rd of the delegates through the primary allows the disabled, elderly homebound, frail, and military personnel stationed away from their permanent voting residence to cast ballots by mail or at early voting. Texas election law and the Texas Democratic Party rules, however, forbids absentee or proxy voting at the precinct conventions. Unlike Maine, which allows registered voters to register their presidential preference by mail and it to be included in the apportionment of national convention delegates, Texas and other caucus states such as Iowa, makes no allowance for inclusion of persons unable to physically attend the precinct convention to be counted in selecting 1/3 of the delegates. The vote parents with small children, persons who have to work during the precinct convention, and persons in frail health who cannot remain long hours at precinct convention also only counted
2/3rd of neighbors who were able to attend the precinct conventions.
Birdseye view of problems at a North Dallas Precinct Convention/Caucus:
More precinct and senatorial district convention irregularies were reported through the "challenge process" in the DFW Metroplex than in the entire rest of the state combined. In most of the Senatorial Districts in Texas three or less challenges were filed. However, in the DFW Metroplex, 119 challenges were filed with the State Democratic Party Credentials Committee. In Collin county alone, over 145 pages of caucus irregularities were reported to the State Democratic Party. In Senate District 23, (Sen. Royce West's District), 35 challenges were filed. Senate District 10 (Fort Worth) had the second highest number of challenges: 29.
Click on image to enlarge.
Two other regions in Texas also reported high numbers of caucus irrgularites:
27 Challenges filed in the Houston area.
17 Challenges filed in Bexar County (San Antonio).
Inside the Texas 2-Step – taped in San Antonio March 4th at a Precinct Convention (Caucus):
Credentials committees frequently "remedied" proven irregularities to finalize the convention roll. They mediated disputes between delegates of different campaigns regarding which delegate to seat. However, they usually did not attempt to remedy proven instances of persons voting in the wrong precinct, unregistered voters signing in on convention sign-in sheets, incomplete information on sign-in sheets, failure of convention clerks verifying voter ID information and confirming that all attendees had voted in the Democratic Primary. Many precincts reported that they had not removed provisional voters from the sign-in sheets. In Tarrant County alone the Provisional Ballot Board rejected over 800 provisional ballots, yet none of the three Senatorial Districts in Tarrant County removed rejected provisional voters from the convention sign-in tally sheets before seating delegates at the Senatorial Conventions.
The National Democratic Delegate Selection Plan stipulates that all meetings pertaining to selection of delegates including precinct conventions, senatorial conventions and state conventions must begin and end at a reasonable time. However, numerous precinct convention caucuses, senatorial conventions, and district convention cacuses at the Texas State Convention where delegates were elected did not end before 10 p.m. The Senatorial 10 At Large Nominations Committee finished selecting national At-Large Pledged delegates at 4:30 a.m. Despite the impact on attendees (or possible attendees) in these meetings where delegates were chosen, these rules remain unenforced.
All Democratic Party meetings are supposed to comply with HAVA and ADA to accommodate the Handicapped. National Democratic Delegate Selection Rules stipulate that all meetings pertaining to the selection of national delegates must adhere to the same ADA accessibility standards as those prescribed for primary polling places. However, many conventions were held in venues which are not ADA compliant. Some precinct convetions were held in dimly lit parking lots hallways, and other inadequate places. At one precinct convention in Dallas, elderly attendees were trampled by other participants and three ambulances were called which transported the injured to the hospital.
Persons needing translators were rarely accommodated at the Precinct Conventions, even though the Election Law requires translators at most polling places. Few of the Senatorial Conventions provided translators for the hearing impaired or materials in Spanish. The visually handicapped and hearing impaired were not accommodated at conventions according to Federal Law and Democratic Party Rules. In Senatorial Districts 9 and 10 in Tarrant County, mobility impaired individuals were not seated on the ground floor, but were required to attempt to climb stairs to their seats. Several delegates elected to the District Conventions phoned the Tarrant County Democratic Headquarters complaining that they would be unable to attend the convention because of inadequate accommodations for the handicapped.
In many parts of the state, precinct conventions were conducted appropriately. The majority of Senatorial Conventions resulted in only one challenge (complaint) filed with the State Credentials Committee. However, in the DFW Metroplex, Bexar County and the Houston Metropolitan area, there were many reports of election workers and convention clerks/chairs instructing voters to go home before they voted for delegates.
Current Democratic Party Rules do not require persons running for Convention Permanent chair or Permanent Secretary to have ever attended a precinct convention or training by the county election office or Democratic Party. Frequently persons who brought a few
neighbors and relatives with them, were able to get elected Permanent Chair or Permanent Secretary at Precinct Conventions. Unfamiliar with Party Rules and Convention Procedures, they were unable to properly instruct other convention attendees. Many failed to properly complete convention minutes or turn in lists of both candidates delegates.
Some precinct convention permanent chairs placed zeal for their candidates over their responsibility to accurately record and report every attendees presidential preference. Obviously, many of the precinct conventions in three of the largest metropolitan areas in Texas were not conducted smoothly.
CURRENT SYSTEM WEIGHS VOTES OF PERSONS IN SOME DISTRICTS MORE THAN OTHER DISTRICTS:
However, even if the conventions had been conducted smoothly and had not discriminated against those who were unable to be present in person to cast their vote, the current process for apportioning delegates in Texas would result in the combined vote and precinct convention attendence of Texans living in different Senatoral Districts having a different weight in apportionment of national pledged presidential delegates.
The number of presidential delegates per senatorial district is based on a formula which grants more delegates to to districts which have higher voter turn-out in the previous Governor's election and less delegates to those which have lower numbers of voters during the previous governor's election. This year, Senator Obama benefits from the formula because more districts with higher numbers of African American residents voted Democratic in the previous governor's election than did residents of other districts with fewer African American residents. African American districts are the districts where the greatest percent of the residents support Senator Obama for president this year.
Coverage on Austin News:
The Texas Hybrid Two Step Process is under review by a committee chaired by Senator Royce West. The party is not expected to rectify the formular which grants more delegates to districts with higher voter turn-out. All votes do not weigh the same when apportioning delegates for nominating the Democratic Nominee for President. When Democrats who live in Senator Royce West's District vote in the primary or sign-in at their precinct convention, their vote goes toward election of more senatorial, state and national convention pledged presidential delegates than does a voter who lives in districts dominated by Republican voters. This year, the formular which distributes more delegates to district which cast the greatest number of votes for Chris Bell for Governor in 2006 than to other districts results in a formular which allows one vote cast in predominately African American district to count more than a vote cast in districts with less African American voters. Therefore, the racial demographics of your neighborhood, not your race or activism, determines how much your vote counts toward nominating the Democratic Presidential nominee.
By Faith Chatham - DFWRCC - Aug. 10, 2008
"Overwhelmed", "chaotic", and "not complying with the election code or Texas Democratic Party Rules" is how many Texas Democratic Precinct and Senatorial Convention attendees describe the Texas Two-Step. Texas is the only state to apportion part (2/3rd) of their national presidential pledged delegates by the results of the Democratic Primary and the rest (1/3) by sign-ins at precinct convention caucuses.
This year 2.8 Texans voted in the Democratic Primary (2,874,986) for every registered voter who attended a Democratic Precinct Convention/Caucus. Only 1,000,000 Texans signed-in at Precinct Conventions to select the remaining 1/3 of the delegates.
If all the delegates had been selected using the percentage of vote cast in the Primary for each candidate, Senator Clinton would have 10 more national delegates than Senator Obama. However, because the percentage of sign-ins per candidate distributes 1/3 of the delegates based on the sign-in presidential preference of the 1,000,000 precinct convention attendees, after primary and convention numbers are tallied, Texas will be sending 5 more delegates pledged to Senator Obama than the number going for Senator Clinton. With nearly three Texans voting in the primary for every Texan attending the precinct conventions, many people think that the preferences of the majority of Texas Democratics should not be overruled by the preferences of many fewer convention attendees.
The Texas Secretary of State's Election Office received few reports of glitches in the Primary Election this year in which 2/3rd of the pledged presidential delegates were selected. However, the Democratic Party Credentials Committee received many complaints (challenges) documenting flawed flawed precinct and senatorial conventions where the remaining 1/3 of the pledged presidential delegates are chosen.
The Texas Democratic Party attempts to address and remedy irregularites in convention voting procedures. This year many senatorial district credentials committees and the Texas State Democratic Credentials Committee reported that they were unable to remedy many of the procedural challenges they reviewed.
Even if the precinct conventions business had been conducted flawlessly, the Texas 2-Step Hybrid Primary/Precinct Convention Caucus system of apportioning national pledged presidential delegates would still discriminate against many Texas registered voters.
>
NEWS 8 AUSTIN Texas 2 step West committee
Selection of 2/3rd of the delegates through the primary allows the disabled, elderly homebound, frail, and military personnel stationed away from their permanent voting residence to cast ballots by mail or at early voting. Texas election law and the Texas Democratic Party rules, however, forbids absentee or proxy voting at the precinct conventions. Unlike Maine, which allows registered voters to register their presidential preference by mail and it to be included in the apportionment of national convention delegates, Texas and other caucus states such as Iowa, makes no allowance for inclusion of persons unable to physically attend the precinct convention to be counted in selecting 1/3 of the delegates. The vote parents with small children, persons who have to work during the precinct convention, and persons in frail health who cannot remain long hours at precinct convention also only counted
2/3rd of neighbors who were able to attend the precinct conventions.
Birdseye view of problems at a North Dallas Precinct Convention/Caucus:
More precinct and senatorial district convention irregularies were reported through the "challenge process" in the DFW Metroplex than in the entire rest of the state combined. In most of the Senatorial Districts in Texas three or less challenges were filed. However, in the DFW Metroplex, 119 challenges were filed with the State Democratic Party Credentials Committee. In Collin county alone, over 145 pages of caucus irregularities were reported to the State Democratic Party. In Senate District 23, (Sen. Royce West's District), 35 challenges were filed. Senate District 10 (Fort Worth) had the second highest number of challenges: 29.
Click on image to enlarge.
Two other regions in Texas also reported high numbers of caucus irrgularites:
27 Challenges filed in the Houston area.
17 Challenges filed in Bexar County (San Antonio).
Inside the Texas 2-Step – taped in San Antonio March 4th at a Precinct Convention (Caucus):
Credentials committees frequently "remedied" proven irregularities to finalize the convention roll. They mediated disputes between delegates of different campaigns regarding which delegate to seat. However, they usually did not attempt to remedy proven instances of persons voting in the wrong precinct, unregistered voters signing in on convention sign-in sheets, incomplete information on sign-in sheets, failure of convention clerks verifying voter ID information and confirming that all attendees had voted in the Democratic Primary. Many precincts reported that they had not removed provisional voters from the sign-in sheets. In Tarrant County alone the Provisional Ballot Board rejected over 800 provisional ballots, yet none of the three Senatorial Districts in Tarrant County removed rejected provisional voters from the convention sign-in tally sheets before seating delegates at the Senatorial Conventions.
The National Democratic Delegate Selection Plan stipulates that all meetings pertaining to selection of delegates including precinct conventions, senatorial conventions and state conventions must begin and end at a reasonable time. However, numerous precinct convention caucuses, senatorial conventions, and district convention cacuses at the Texas State Convention where delegates were elected did not end before 10 p.m. The Senatorial 10 At Large Nominations Committee finished selecting national At-Large Pledged delegates at 4:30 a.m. Despite the impact on attendees (or possible attendees) in these meetings where delegates were chosen, these rules remain unenforced.
All Democratic Party meetings are supposed to comply with HAVA and ADA to accommodate the Handicapped. National Democratic Delegate Selection Rules stipulate that all meetings pertaining to the selection of national delegates must adhere to the same ADA accessibility standards as those prescribed for primary polling places. However, many conventions were held in venues which are not ADA compliant. Some precinct convetions were held in dimly lit parking lots hallways, and other inadequate places. At one precinct convention in Dallas, elderly attendees were trampled by other participants and three ambulances were called which transported the injured to the hospital.
Persons needing translators were rarely accommodated at the Precinct Conventions, even though the Election Law requires translators at most polling places. Few of the Senatorial Conventions provided translators for the hearing impaired or materials in Spanish. The visually handicapped and hearing impaired were not accommodated at conventions according to Federal Law and Democratic Party Rules. In Senatorial Districts 9 and 10 in Tarrant County, mobility impaired individuals were not seated on the ground floor, but were required to attempt to climb stairs to their seats. Several delegates elected to the District Conventions phoned the Tarrant County Democratic Headquarters complaining that they would be unable to attend the convention because of inadequate accommodations for the handicapped.
In many parts of the state, precinct conventions were conducted appropriately. The majority of Senatorial Conventions resulted in only one challenge (complaint) filed with the State Credentials Committee. However, in the DFW Metroplex, Bexar County and the Houston Metropolitan area, there were many reports of election workers and convention clerks/chairs instructing voters to go home before they voted for delegates.
Current Democratic Party Rules do not require persons running for Convention Permanent chair or Permanent Secretary to have ever attended a precinct convention or training by the county election office or Democratic Party. Frequently persons who brought a few
neighbors and relatives with them, were able to get elected Permanent Chair or Permanent Secretary at Precinct Conventions. Unfamiliar with Party Rules and Convention Procedures, they were unable to properly instruct other convention attendees. Many failed to properly complete convention minutes or turn in lists of both candidates delegates.
Some precinct convention permanent chairs placed zeal for their candidates over their responsibility to accurately record and report every attendees presidential preference. Obviously, many of the precinct conventions in three of the largest metropolitan areas in Texas were not conducted smoothly.
CURRENT SYSTEM WEIGHS VOTES OF PERSONS IN SOME DISTRICTS MORE THAN OTHER DISTRICTS:
However, even if the conventions had been conducted smoothly and had not discriminated against those who were unable to be present in person to cast their vote, the current process for apportioning delegates in Texas would result in the combined vote and precinct convention attendence of Texans living in different Senatoral Districts having a different weight in apportionment of national pledged presidential delegates.
The number of presidential delegates per senatorial district is based on a formula which grants more delegates to to districts which have higher voter turn-out in the previous Governor's election and less delegates to those which have lower numbers of voters during the previous governor's election. This year, Senator Obama benefits from the formula because more districts with higher numbers of African American residents voted Democratic in the previous governor's election than did residents of other districts with fewer African American residents. African American districts are the districts where the greatest percent of the residents support Senator Obama for president this year.
Coverage on Austin News:
The Texas Hybrid Two Step Process is under review by a committee chaired by Senator Royce West. The party is not expected to rectify the formular which grants more delegates to districts with higher voter turn-out. All votes do not weigh the same when apportioning delegates for nominating the Democratic Nominee for President. When Democrats who live in Senator Royce West's District vote in the primary or sign-in at their precinct convention, their vote goes toward election of more senatorial, state and national convention pledged presidential delegates than does a voter who lives in districts dominated by Republican voters. This year, the formular which distributes more delegates to district which cast the greatest number of votes for Chris Bell for Governor in 2006 than to other districts results in a formular which allows one vote cast in predominately African American district to count more than a vote cast in districts with less African American voters. Therefore, the racial demographics of your neighborhood, not your race or activism, determines how much your vote counts toward nominating the Democratic Presidential nominee.
All Votes Aren’t Equal: Texas Credentials Report Cites Evidence of Procedural Irregularities
This is part of a multi-part series. See Daily Kos and Texas Campaign 2008 for the first part of the series. Crossposted on DAILY KOS and TEXAS KAOS
By Faith Chatham - DFWRCC - August 12, 2008
I just received a copy of the 2008 Texas Democratic Convention Credentials Committee's report from TDP Staffer Jim Boyton. The summary is below:
The Preamble of the 2008 Credentials Committee Report to the SDEC and Texas Democratic State Convention addresses the expectations of the 2.8 million Texas primary voters:
Acknowleding that many of the conventions were conducted fairly, they stated:
They attributed some of the problems to:
The Preamble explains the importance of the Challenge Process:
The committee acknowledged that they did not remedy all the challenges they affirmed and they did not enforce the rules to the fullest extent:
Apportioning presidential delegates at the convention creates disunity:
This year the high turn-out of convention attendees further exacerbated the divisions among Texas Democrats:
The Challenge Process is designed to facilitate healing among Democratic Convention participants:
The Committee stated that they decided in some instances not to require full compliance with the rules, attempting "to balance" opposing sides and hopefully create ways for participants to work together in the future:
The Committee urges the Party to Reform and Modernize the Infrastructure of the Convention Process:
The report contains summaries of challenges they reviewed. They did not accept for review all the challenges presented to them.
In the Credentials Committee Report Summary of Challenges they frequently affirm the challenge and state that they have no appropriate remedy.
This report is released long after the deadline for filing National Challenges. Ironically, the report acknowledges the failure of precinct, county and senatorial district officials to provide records and minutes for review and utilization by those wishing to file challenges, yet the Credentials Committee of the 2008 Democratic State Convention the deadline themselves. The report was not "written" when presented to the Convention. Mr. Boyton had to compile the report from sources which included video tape and other convention/committee records. I am aware of several people who have been requesting this report repeatedly since the close of the 2008 Convention. I am thankful that it is now available. It is a tool for use in refining the process to ensure that future conventions are not as divisive and detrimental to the purposes most Democrats hold in common.
By Faith Chatham - DFWRCC - August 12, 2008
I just received a copy of the 2008 Texas Democratic Convention Credentials Committee's report from TDP Staffer Jim Boyton. The summary is below:
STATEMENT ON RULES AND PROCEDURES
The Committee heard heart-felt, dispiriting testimony from witnesses representing hundreds of challengers about improprieties at many county/senatorial district conventions. Even though the Committee could not always ascertain the factual predicate necessary to divine a remedy that would deny the fruits of the wrongdoing to the violators without harming the effort of welcoming participation by tens of thousands of new Democrats and beginning the healing process, the Committee implores the Party to take stringent steps to prevent recurrence of the following types of infractions:
• Abandoning the convention leadership’s responsibility to ensure credentials go only to those properly elected at the precinct conventions below as properly reflected on the precinct convention minutes returned in a timely manner;
• Allowing participation by alternates or visitors in the voting in precinct caucuses or the voting on the floor of the convention;
• Not recognizing delegates on the floor to challenge the approval of the nominating committee’s nominees for4 delegate-at-large without allowing individual challenges;
• Having one person serving in multiple positions, e.g. Chair of the Tabulations Committee, Rules Committee and Credentials Committee simultaneously as well as adopting and enforcing special rules;
• Claiming to suspend the rules or adopting special rules under the rubric of Robert’s Rules of Order in order to operate in direct violation of the Rules of the Texas Democratic Party;
• Holding joint conventions of different senatorial districts within a county, including joint Nominations or other committees;
• Not appointing members of the Credentials or other committees at the time and in the manner prescribed in the rules, including not in open meetings or not properly balanced;
• Ordering precinct conventions to be ignored and to be reheld without proper factual basis found by the appropriate authorities and without opportunity for sufficient notice to all potential precinct voters;
• Not having the precinct convention minutes and all exhibits made available in a timely manner to anyone wanting to use those materials for supporting any Democratic candidates;
• Not addressing the time frame for the credential verification and challenge processes so that those matters can be resolved sufficiently in advance of the opening of the conventions to avoid long delays in the convention before conducting their other business.
The Preamble of the 2008 Credentials Committee Report to the SDEC and Texas Democratic State Convention addresses the expectations of the 2.8 million Texas primary voters:
PREAMBLE
On March 4, 2008, some 2.8 million Texans exuberantly turned out to select the leaders that they wanted to carry forward the Democratic banner in the fall election. These people cast their votes to restore the levers of government in our county and state to those dedicated to implementing policies and democratic values in the best interest of all Americans.
An unprecedented million or so of those voters also participated in their precinct conventions in hopes of helping the presidential candidate of their choice obtain the Democratic nomination to lead that campaign in the fall. Those Democrats rightfully expected the convention process at both the precinct and the county/senatorial district convention levels to be conducted fairly and openly in accordance with the rules and laws applicable to the most important of all rights – the right to vote.
Acknowleding that many of the conventions were conducted fairly, they stated:
For the most part, the conventions were able to conduct their important business with due respect for the rules and the rights for all involved. The conventions did so in spite of the unprecedented numbers of participants, the vast majority of whom had never participated in their conventions beforehand, and cumbersome or arcane rules and procedures. The amazing success of the conventions is due to the dedication, patience and good faith of the scores of thousands involved.
They attributed some of the problems to:
However, constraints of time or facilities, misunderstanding of the rules, miscommunication between the people involved, or occasionally excess zeal in trying to advance the cause of a particular presidential candidate, caused improprieties or mistakes to be made in the process.
The Preamble explains the importance of the Challenge Process:
The Democratic Party devised the rules after decades of experience where those in positions of power often overrode the rights of others, sometimes even of the majority. The rules are designed to give everyone a fair opportunity to participate and any transgression of those rights, regardless of how well intentioned or innocent the cause of the transgression, is a serious matter. For that reason the Party has established the challenge process over which this Committee has been deliberating these past three weeks.
The committee acknowledged that they did not remedy all the challenges they affirmed and they did not enforce the rules to the fullest extent:
This report contains the recommendations of the committee to the SDEC as how to resolve all of the challenges that came before the Committee. The Committee recognizes that these recommendations do not always enforce the letter of the rules to the fullest. This is done consciously and advisedly.
Apportioning presidential delegates at the convention creates disunity:
In the heat of the convention process, where those supporting competing candidates vie for delegates, passions run high and feelings are often injured.
This year the high turn-out of convention attendees further exacerbated the divisions among Texas Democrats:
The unique obstacles created by trying to accommodate such unprecedented participation in inadequate facilities in such a short time for planning often exacerbated the sense of injury.
The Challenge Process is designed to facilitate healing among Democratic Convention participants:
The Committee strongly believes that it is crucial to our common pursuit of success in the fall elections to use the resolution of these challenges to commence the healing of those bruised feelings and the coming-back together of the factions. For that reason, the Committee suggested that the local participants involved always try to reach a mutual accommodation amongst themselves before forcing the Committee to rule on certain challenges. The Committee appreciates and commends those challengers and respondents in many senate districts that did so. The Committee has recommended approval of those agreements.
The Committee stated that they decided in some instances not to require full compliance with the rules, attempting "to balance" opposing sides and hopefully create ways for participants to work together in the future:
In other instances, the Committee has recommended resolution of challenges that balance the competing interests of not discouraging participation by those new to the process and insisting on full compliance with rules. In these instances, the Committee chose not apply the harshest relief available for these violations. These decisions are not made lightly and do not reflect in any regard a derogation of the good faith and hard effort of those bringing those challenges, often in the face of powerful interests or community pressures not to do so. The balanced resolutions are recommended not only because the available data is sometimes insufficient to tie a particular remedy to the appropriate person or the remedy may harm the potential participation in the state convention of those not involved in the violation of the rules; but also because the Committee feels these resolutions are appropriate to encourage those involved to look beyond their arguments for or against the particular challenge to see how they can begin working in harmony again for our common purpose in the fall.
The Committee urges the Party to Reform and Modernize the Infrastructure of the Convention Process:
That said, the Committee .. encourages the Party as a whole to reform and modernize the infrastructure for the convention process at all levels. The specifics of those reforms are beyond the purview of this Committee but we have heard the testimony of so many people that believe the processes to be inadequate that we feel compelled to express that on their behalf.
The report contains summaries of challenges they reviewed. They did not accept for review all the challenges presented to them.
The Committee makes specific comment on certain egregious violations
In the Credentials Committee Report Summary of Challenges they frequently affirm the challenge and state that they have no appropriate remedy.
This report is released long after the deadline for filing National Challenges. Ironically, the report acknowledges the failure of precinct, county and senatorial district officials to provide records and minutes for review and utilization by those wishing to file challenges, yet the Credentials Committee of the 2008 Democratic State Convention the deadline themselves. The report was not "written" when presented to the Convention. Mr. Boyton had to compile the report from sources which included video tape and other convention/committee records. I am aware of several people who have been requesting this report repeatedly since the close of the 2008 Convention. I am thankful that it is now available. It is a tool for use in refining the process to ensure that future conventions are not as divisive and detrimental to the purposes most Democrats hold in common.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Elected or Designated: Democratic Nominee in Historical Perspective
OPINION: By Faith Chatham - DFWRCC - August 8, 2008
Howard Dean and some so called "party leaders" are demanding that Hillary Clinton not have her name entered into nomination. News pundits have referred to the prospect of her being nominated as "unprecedented." Others discuss how having her name in nomination will take the spot light off of Obama.
The voice of 18 million voters seems inconsequential to Howard Dean and those who are threatening Senator Clinton, trying to force her not to allow her voters to be represented democratically at the Democratic National Convention.
A look at historical data shows that the "presumed nominee" does not always win the nomination. In fact, the "underdog" sometimes goes straight to the White House.
Instead of splitting the party, entering her name into nomination and allowing her delegates to represent the preference of 18 million Democratic Voters will unify the party. Unless her name is entered into nomination, a signification number of her 18 million voters will either 1. sit the election out, 2. vote only for down ticket candidates, or 3. vote for a candidate of a different party.
Democratic voters demand that the party treat every candidate fairly. Neither Senator Obama nor Senator Clinton should be marginalized or discriminated against. A fair, legitimate, honest election at the National Democratic Convention is necessary to energize and sustain the party. Howard Dean should step down as chair of the DNC because he just does not understand the importance of upholding the sacred American principal of one person one vote.
Howard Dean fails to lead. Instead he dictates and manipulates. In addition to threatening viable candidates, he appointed a third of the members of both the Rules and By Laws Committee and the Credentials Committee. Decisions by these committees to strip her of a significant number of her delegates through imposition of penalties for A RULE VIOLATION while similar penalties have not been imposed on other states where there are MANY DOCUMENTED RULES VIOLATIONS created a false perception that Senator Obama is the inevitable Democratic Nominee for president.
These committees have violated the trust of the members of the Democratic Party. Their role is not to DETERMINE who the nominee will be but to insure that there is a fair and honest process which honors the votes of American citizens.
The Chair of the Democratic Party is not elected to be a "king maker." Howard Dean's actions during this election cycle more closely resemble that of Josef Stalin than of an American leader. Chairman Dean should retire. Democrats deserve better. The American people deserve better.
Every candidate deserves to be treated fairly and respectfully.
In order to "unify the party" the nominee must win FAIR AND SQUARE. The manipulations of the Democratic Party to curtain fair electoral processes representing all candidates at the Democratic Party violate the precepts upon which the party was created.
This op-ed was posted on Daily Kos and has attacted a lot of heated comments by Obama supporters. The attitude shown by many on that site is what many Clinton supporters face in the community. There is a lack of understanding of the process and a lack of respect for the process.
If you want to join in on the discussion, register as a user of Daily Kos. Twenty four hours after you register you can comment and post.
Howard Dean and some so called "party leaders" are demanding that Hillary Clinton not have her name entered into nomination. News pundits have referred to the prospect of her being nominated as "unprecedented." Others discuss how having her name in nomination will take the spot light off of Obama.
The voice of 18 million voters seems inconsequential to Howard Dean and those who are threatening Senator Clinton, trying to force her not to allow her voters to be represented democratically at the Democratic National Convention.
A look at historical data shows that the "presumed nominee" does not always win the nomination. In fact, the "underdog" sometimes goes straight to the White House.
Instead of splitting the party, entering her name into nomination and allowing her delegates to represent the preference of 18 million Democratic Voters will unify the party. Unless her name is entered into nomination, a signification number of her 18 million voters will either 1. sit the election out, 2. vote only for down ticket candidates, or 3. vote for a candidate of a different party.
Democratic voters demand that the party treat every candidate fairly. Neither Senator Obama nor Senator Clinton should be marginalized or discriminated against. A fair, legitimate, honest election at the National Democratic Convention is necessary to energize and sustain the party. Howard Dean should step down as chair of the DNC because he just does not understand the importance of upholding the sacred American principal of one person one vote.
1980:
Jimmy Carter - 1981 delegates
Ted Kennedy - 1225 delegates
Uncommitted - 122
No way Kennedy could win, but his name was placed in nomination.
2004:
John Kerry: 2192.5 Pledged delegates
Howard Dean: 114.5 Pledged delegates
Dean had already dropped out with no chance of winning, but his name was placed in nomination.
2008:
Barack Obama: 1766.5 Pledged delegates
Hillary Clinton: 1639.5 Pledged delegates
The contender is being told to shut up for the sake of the party.
In addition, Teddy Kennedy has had his name on that first ballot in 1968 (12 votes), 1972 (12 votes), 1976 (1 vote), 1980 (1150 - he lost some supporters along the way).
Jesse Jackson has had his name on that first ballot twice: 1984 (465 votes), 1988 (1218 votes).
Howard Dean fails to lead. Instead he dictates and manipulates. In addition to threatening viable candidates, he appointed a third of the members of both the Rules and By Laws Committee and the Credentials Committee. Decisions by these committees to strip her of a significant number of her delegates through imposition of penalties for A RULE VIOLATION while similar penalties have not been imposed on other states where there are MANY DOCUMENTED RULES VIOLATIONS created a false perception that Senator Obama is the inevitable Democratic Nominee for president.
These committees have violated the trust of the members of the Democratic Party. Their role is not to DETERMINE who the nominee will be but to insure that there is a fair and honest process which honors the votes of American citizens.
The Chair of the Democratic Party is not elected to be a "king maker." Howard Dean's actions during this election cycle more closely resemble that of Josef Stalin than of an American leader. Chairman Dean should retire. Democrats deserve better. The American people deserve better.
Every candidate deserves to be treated fairly and respectfully.
In order to "unify the party" the nominee must win FAIR AND SQUARE. The manipulations of the Democratic Party to curtain fair electoral processes representing all candidates at the Democratic Party violate the precepts upon which the party was created.
This op-ed was posted on Daily Kos and has attacted a lot of heated comments by Obama supporters. The attitude shown by many on that site is what many Clinton supporters face in the community. There is a lack of understanding of the process and a lack of respect for the process.
If you want to join in on the discussion, register as a user of Daily Kos. Twenty four hours after you register you can comment and post.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Florida Delegates may regain full voting strength
By Faith Chatham - DFWRCC - August 4, 2008
Senator Obama wrote the co-chairs of the Democratic National Convention Credentials Committee this month requesting restoration of Full-voting strength for Florida and Michigan delegates:
Senator Obama advocates that the Credential Committee pass a resolution restoring each delegate to a full-vote (from the current half vote imposed by the Rules and By Laws Committee earlier this year). The next meeting of the Credentials Committee is Aug. 24th.
The letter was written months after the DNC Rules and By Laws Committee stripped Michgan and Florida of half of their delegates' voting strength. Senator Obama's campaign objected to granting full voting strenght to Florida when the Rules and By Laws Committee met.
Combined, Michigan and Florida have 368 delegates. Enough delegates are in play between the two states to determine the nomination for president. Despite the Obama campaign, the DNC and many media outlets, declaring Senator Obama the presumptous Democratic Nominee for president, restoration of both Michigan and Florida's full voting strength to their delegates significantly narrows the the margin between the pledged delegates of Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. Clinton is the only candidate who has not conceded the race or released her national national delegates.
The Obama campaign counted endorsement from Unpledged Super Delegates in their delegate count when declaring him the winner. However, superdelegates are unpledged. Endorsements from super delegates are non-binding. Super delegates, unlike other national delegates, vote in secret. Historically, the votes actually cast by Super Delegates at Democratic National Convention frequently do not parallel their presidential endorsements. Some Super Delegates change their minds, without making public the candidate who actually gets their vote.
Click on image to enlarge.
Declaration of Senator Obama the presumptous Nominee before the National Convention is criticized as disenfranchising the voters.
For a candidate to legitimately be the "presumptous nominee", the threahold of 2118 delegates should be reached from pledged delegates selected from the 60% of delegates who are elected from the State Conventions without inclusion of any of the 40% of unpledged Super Delegates in the total delegate count. Some Democratic activists believe the DNC, media and Obama campaign have misreperesented the nomination process to the public, causing many to believe that including unpledged delegates with the pledged delegate count gives a reliable indicator of the outcome of the election at the Convention. Despite many unity events and cooperation by Senator Hillary Clinton, belief that the Obama campaign and the DNC are resisting entrance of Senator Clinton's name into nomination at the convention, and conduction of a fair, democratic election for the Democratic Presidential Nominee where both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama's names appear on the ballot and there is a recorded roll call vote is believed by many to be contributing to Sen. Obama's favorable ratings remaining soft and reflections in the polls that he continues to be unable to energize Democrats who are not already his supporters.
Without leadership from the Clinton Campaign (which was suspended in June), a network of activist groups continues to lobby, demonstrate, and stage visibility events working toward restoration of the full voting strength of the Florida and Michigan delegates, and entrance of Sen. Clinton's name in nomination in Denver.
Prospects for the General Election:
In November, Michigan and Florida will be key battleground states. Numerous visits to Florida and Michigan have not "sealed" the election for either Sen. Obama or Sen. McCain in those states. In Florida this past week, the Quinnipiac poll released Thursday morning (July 31), lists Florida as "officially too close to call". Senator Obama's slight lead over Sen. John McCain is disappearing. In June, Obama led McCain in Florida by 47 to 43. This last poll shows that lead narrowed with Obama leading only 46 to 44 for Sen. McCain among likely General Election voters. This is within the margin of error. Obama's championing restoration of the delegates voting strength, even though it comes rather late, may help improve his ratings in Florida which is rich in Electoral Votes.
McCain beats Obama among white voters in Florida. In Florida, Obama's strength is with African American and Hispanic voters. He needs to make better inroads with progressive white voters. Read more in Central Florida 13 News.
Disgruntled Floridians who resent the DNC for having reduced the weight of their primary votes half could definitely determine the outcome of the General Election. Flordia may ultimately determine who is the next occupant of the White House.
Months after the DNC's decision by the Rules and By Laws Committee, the "Count Every Vote movement" continues to exert pressure, demanding that the DNC restores the delegates of Michigan and Florida and allows them to represent the voters.
Nationwide, in a syndicated story on NPR News August 2, 2008, "New polls show that the presidential race is looking close nationally and in swing states. Although Charles Cook of the Cook Political Report says it is too early to predict the outcome of the race, he says that the Electoral College vote will be closer than the popular vote.
Swing State Voters In Flordia and Michigan Seen as Crucial to Winning in November:
Florida has a total of 208 Delegates to the Democratic National Convention. Of these delegates, 182 are pledged and 26 are unpledged Super Delegates. If they are granted full voting strength, Senator Clinton has earned 105 of Florida's pledged delegates, Sen. Edwards, 12, and Sen. Obama, 65 pledged delegates. Even though Sen. Edwards has withdrawn and endorsed Senator Obama, his delegates are not obligated to vote for Senator Obama.
If the DNC restores full voting strength to Florida's delegates, Senator Clinton will gain 65 pledged delegates for a total of 1693 pledged delegates. Her pledged delegates will give her 80% of the delegates necessary for nomination. Senator Obama will gain 33 pledged delegates (total of 1793) giving him 84.7% of the pledged delegates necessary for nomination.
The nomination will be determined at the National Democratic Convention by the secret ballots of 825 UNPLEDGED Super Delegates. Super Delegates' endorsements of candidates are not reliable indicators of how they will actually vote at the Convention. Historically, some Super Delegates who declare for a candidate prior to the convention change their minds. Frequently they do not release who they voted for after the Convention. This year 14% to 20% of the delegates necessary for nominating a presidential candidate will come from the vote of unpledged Super Delegates who cast secret ballots at the National Convention.
Polls consistently show that Florida will be a pivotal swing state in this year's General Election. Senator Obama's hardline resistance to granting Florida delegates full voting status has not enabled him to poll significantly higher than Sen. McCain among likely voters in Florida. His numbers remain softer in other states than they should considering the high unfavorable ratings of many Republican incumbents and the George W. Bush administration. The DNC's violation of the principles of one person one vote in penalizing Florida and Michigan is a firestorm which has not died down among activists across the nation.
A fair, Democratic convention where Senator Clinton's name is entered into nomination, and appears on the ballot at the National Convention are demands which consistently are made by her supporters. Unless her supporters see that a fair election for Presidential Nominee is conducted at the National Democratic Convention, a significant number of the voters and donors necessary for a Democratic Nominee winning in November remain defiant and unconvinced. Senator Obama's letter to the DNC urging that they restore Michigan and Florida delegates full voting status at the Convention is a step toward real unification instead of empty rhetoric.
Senator Obama wrote the co-chairs of the Democratic National Convention Credentials Committee this month requesting restoration of Full-voting strength for Florida and Michigan delegates:
"I believe party unity calls for the delegates from Florida and Michigan to be able to participate fully alongside the delegates from the other states and territories."
Senator Obama advocates that the Credential Committee pass a resolution restoring each delegate to a full-vote (from the current half vote imposed by the Rules and By Laws Committee earlier this year). The next meeting of the Credentials Committee is Aug. 24th.
The letter was written months after the DNC Rules and By Laws Committee stripped Michgan and Florida of half of their delegates' voting strength. Senator Obama's campaign objected to granting full voting strenght to Florida when the Rules and By Laws Committee met.
Combined, Michigan and Florida have 368 delegates. Enough delegates are in play between the two states to determine the nomination for president. Despite the Obama campaign, the DNC and many media outlets, declaring Senator Obama the presumptous Democratic Nominee for president, restoration of both Michigan and Florida's full voting strength to their delegates significantly narrows the the margin between the pledged delegates of Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. Clinton is the only candidate who has not conceded the race or released her national national delegates.
The Obama campaign counted endorsement from Unpledged Super Delegates in their delegate count when declaring him the winner. However, superdelegates are unpledged. Endorsements from super delegates are non-binding. Super delegates, unlike other national delegates, vote in secret. Historically, the votes actually cast by Super Delegates at Democratic National Convention frequently do not parallel their presidential endorsements. Some Super Delegates change their minds, without making public the candidate who actually gets their vote.
Click on image to enlarge.
Declaration of Senator Obama the presumptous Nominee before the National Convention is criticized as disenfranchising the voters.
For a candidate to legitimately be the "presumptous nominee", the threahold of 2118 delegates should be reached from pledged delegates selected from the 60% of delegates who are elected from the State Conventions without inclusion of any of the 40% of unpledged Super Delegates in the total delegate count. Some Democratic activists believe the DNC, media and Obama campaign have misreperesented the nomination process to the public, causing many to believe that including unpledged delegates with the pledged delegate count gives a reliable indicator of the outcome of the election at the Convention. Despite many unity events and cooperation by Senator Hillary Clinton, belief that the Obama campaign and the DNC are resisting entrance of Senator Clinton's name into nomination at the convention, and conduction of a fair, democratic election for the Democratic Presidential Nominee where both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama's names appear on the ballot and there is a recorded roll call vote is believed by many to be contributing to Sen. Obama's favorable ratings remaining soft and reflections in the polls that he continues to be unable to energize Democrats who are not already his supporters.
Without leadership from the Clinton Campaign (which was suspended in June), a network of activist groups continues to lobby, demonstrate, and stage visibility events working toward restoration of the full voting strength of the Florida and Michigan delegates, and entrance of Sen. Clinton's name in nomination in Denver.
Prospects for the General Election:
In November, Michigan and Florida will be key battleground states. Numerous visits to Florida and Michigan have not "sealed" the election for either Sen. Obama or Sen. McCain in those states. In Florida this past week, the Quinnipiac poll released Thursday morning (July 31), lists Florida as "officially too close to call". Senator Obama's slight lead over Sen. John McCain is disappearing. In June, Obama led McCain in Florida by 47 to 43. This last poll shows that lead narrowed with Obama leading only 46 to 44 for Sen. McCain among likely General Election voters. This is within the margin of error. Obama's championing restoration of the delegates voting strength, even though it comes rather late, may help improve his ratings in Florida which is rich in Electoral Votes.
McCain beats Obama among white voters in Florida. In Florida, Obama's strength is with African American and Hispanic voters. He needs to make better inroads with progressive white voters. Read more in Central Florida 13 News.
Disgruntled Floridians who resent the DNC for having reduced the weight of their primary votes half could definitely determine the outcome of the General Election. Flordia may ultimately determine who is the next occupant of the White House.
Months after the DNC's decision by the Rules and By Laws Committee, the "Count Every Vote movement" continues to exert pressure, demanding that the DNC restores the delegates of Michigan and Florida and allows them to represent the voters.
Nationwide, in a syndicated story on NPR News August 2, 2008, "New polls show that the presidential race is looking close nationally and in swing states. Although Charles Cook of the Cook Political Report says it is too early to predict the outcome of the race, he says that the Electoral College vote will be closer than the popular vote.
Swing State Voters In Flordia and Michigan Seen as Crucial to Winning in November:
Florida has a total of 208 Delegates to the Democratic National Convention. Of these delegates, 182 are pledged and 26 are unpledged Super Delegates. If they are granted full voting strength, Senator Clinton has earned 105 of Florida's pledged delegates, Sen. Edwards, 12, and Sen. Obama, 65 pledged delegates. Even though Sen. Edwards has withdrawn and endorsed Senator Obama, his delegates are not obligated to vote for Senator Obama.
If the DNC restores full voting strength to Florida's delegates, Senator Clinton will gain 65 pledged delegates for a total of 1693 pledged delegates. Her pledged delegates will give her 80% of the delegates necessary for nomination. Senator Obama will gain 33 pledged delegates (total of 1793) giving him 84.7% of the pledged delegates necessary for nomination.
The nomination will be determined at the National Democratic Convention by the secret ballots of 825 UNPLEDGED Super Delegates. Super Delegates' endorsements of candidates are not reliable indicators of how they will actually vote at the Convention. Historically, some Super Delegates who declare for a candidate prior to the convention change their minds. Frequently they do not release who they voted for after the Convention. This year 14% to 20% of the delegates necessary for nominating a presidential candidate will come from the vote of unpledged Super Delegates who cast secret ballots at the National Convention.
Polls consistently show that Florida will be a pivotal swing state in this year's General Election. Senator Obama's hardline resistance to granting Florida delegates full voting status has not enabled him to poll significantly higher than Sen. McCain among likely voters in Florida. His numbers remain softer in other states than they should considering the high unfavorable ratings of many Republican incumbents and the George W. Bush administration. The DNC's violation of the principles of one person one vote in penalizing Florida and Michigan is a firestorm which has not died down among activists across the nation.
A fair, Democratic convention where Senator Clinton's name is entered into nomination, and appears on the ballot at the National Convention are demands which consistently are made by her supporters. Unless her supporters see that a fair election for Presidential Nominee is conducted at the National Democratic Convention, a significant number of the voters and donors necessary for a Democratic Nominee winning in November remain defiant and unconvinced. Senator Obama's letter to the DNC urging that they restore Michigan and Florida delegates full voting status at the Convention is a step toward real unification instead of empty rhetoric.
Race Card Charges and Campaign Discord Mark Dog Days of Summer
Who let the dogs out?
By Dan Balz - The Trail - Washington Post - Aug. 1, 2008
Was it Barack Obama, who not so subtly pointed to John McCain and seemingly accused him of trying to scare voters by drawing attention to the fact that Obama doesn't look like (read: he is African American) all the other presidents? Or was it McCain's campaign, which cried foul over Obama's statements with such vehemence that race became the story of the day on all the networks, in all the papers and on all the blogs?
McCain campaign manager Rick Davis and Obama chief strategist David Axelrod continued to argue the question of who played the race card on the Friday morning shows. Davis blamed Obama; Axelrod blamed Davis.
"We were reacting to what Barack Obama himself said about John McCain," Davis said on NBC's "Today Show." "And I think we were perfectly within our rights to protect our candidate and to point out that we're not going to lay down for these kinds of tactics. And I think that was fair. We'll let the chips fall where they may when it comes to how people perceive this, but we are not going to let anybody paint John McCain, who's fought his entire life for equal rights for everyone, to be able to be painted as racist. We've seen this happen before and we've not going to let it happen to us."
"He said it to a crowd in rural Missouri, 99 percent white," Axelrod said moments later on the same program, explaining the context of Obama's remarks. "There were all kinds of press there. Nobody reported it as a racial comment. Nobody certainly said what Rick Davis just said, that he called John McCain a racist. The only time this became an issue was when Rick Davis and their campaign decided to kick it up and make it a racial issue, and that's exactly what -- they've been running a negative campaign for weeks."
Four things are already clear from the controversy. First, Obama campaign officials, lacking any example of McCain ever pointing directly or indirectly at Obama's race as an issue in the campaign, have backpedaled rapidly away from any suggestion that their Republican opponent is using the very tactics Obama suggested on Wednesday.
Campaign manager David Plouffe was pressed hard during a conference call on Thursday for examples and could not point to any. An inquiry to the Obama campaign later in the day produced no immediate response and later no answer to a direct question asking for evidence to buttress Obama's suggestion that McCain would try to scare people into not voting for Obama because he's black.
Officials deny that Obama was suggesting that McCain is racist or running on a racially based message. But they believe the McCain campaign has embraced a low-road strategy and, hoping to contrast themselves with previous Democratic nominees, are prepared to respond to every attack.
Second, the sense of grievance over this issue within McCain's high command is deep and palpable. Those emotions led to the decision to have Davis call out Obama on Thursday with his extraordinarily provocative statement: "Barack Obama has played the race card and he played it from the bottom of the deck," he said. "It's divisive, negative, shameful and wrong."
Before all this happened, McCain advisers believed that the Obama campaign successfully pinned a racist label on Bill Clinton during the during primaries -- for comments that drew protests from some leading African American politicians -- and were determined not to let the same happen to McCain. Also, they take personally any suggestion from the Obama campaign that they are part of a campaign that would play the race card and are indignant about it.
Ironically, the McCain camp's celebrity ad comparing Obama to the vapid pair of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears drew some criticism as a subtle attempt to play the race card in the same way Republicans did against Harold Ford in the 2006 Senate race with the ad that concluded with an attractive young blonde woman saying, "Harold, call me." McCain advisers are as incensed over those suggestions as Obama advisers are over Davis's charge.
Third, the more that race is a topic of conversation, the more it could hurt Obama. Though he has been direct in warning about the use of scare tactics by his opponents, he is deeply aware that he is asking much of the electorate to cast a vote for someone with his biography and experience.
How he creates a comfort level with voters is a major challenge and one that he and his advisers believe cannot be done overnight. What he fears is that his opponents -- and here I do not refer directly to McCain -- will poison the environment with innuendo. He has struggled against outright falsehoods throughout the whole campaign. But simply making people feel comfortable with the truth of his candidacy is challenging.
Finally, the lack of respect between the two candidates continues to grow. Both began the general election with predictable statements about their desire to have a vigorous but respectful debate. Obama regularly pays tribute to McCain's service in Vietnam. McCain has spoken with admiration for Obama's obvious talents.
In reality, neither now seems to have a high opinion of the other. McCain's lack of respect has been evident for some time. He seems to view Obama as a pretender, who talks about change but has not been willing to cross his party or any important constituencies as a senator, which in McCain's view is necessary to truly change Washington. Obama certainly does honor McCain's service, but is dismayed over what he regards as continuous attacks from McCain.
That atmosphere made it all more inevitable that the kind of explosion that occurred this week would come at some point. Now it will be hard to go back.
No one expects the level of discord to stay at the level of the past few days, but there is every reason to believe that the remaining 95 days will see more such episodes. The stakes are too high, the conditions too ripe, and the campaigns too ready to go to the brink. Whether it could have been otherwise is a question only the campaigns themselves can answer.
Read more in the Washington Post
By Dan Balz - The Trail - Washington Post - Aug. 1, 2008
Was it Barack Obama, who not so subtly pointed to John McCain and seemingly accused him of trying to scare voters by drawing attention to the fact that Obama doesn't look like (read: he is African American) all the other presidents? Or was it McCain's campaign, which cried foul over Obama's statements with such vehemence that race became the story of the day on all the networks, in all the papers and on all the blogs?
McCain campaign manager Rick Davis and Obama chief strategist David Axelrod continued to argue the question of who played the race card on the Friday morning shows. Davis blamed Obama; Axelrod blamed Davis.
"We were reacting to what Barack Obama himself said about John McCain," Davis said on NBC's "Today Show." "And I think we were perfectly within our rights to protect our candidate and to point out that we're not going to lay down for these kinds of tactics. And I think that was fair. We'll let the chips fall where they may when it comes to how people perceive this, but we are not going to let anybody paint John McCain, who's fought his entire life for equal rights for everyone, to be able to be painted as racist. We've seen this happen before and we've not going to let it happen to us."
"He said it to a crowd in rural Missouri, 99 percent white," Axelrod said moments later on the same program, explaining the context of Obama's remarks. "There were all kinds of press there. Nobody reported it as a racial comment. Nobody certainly said what Rick Davis just said, that he called John McCain a racist. The only time this became an issue was when Rick Davis and their campaign decided to kick it up and make it a racial issue, and that's exactly what -- they've been running a negative campaign for weeks."
Four things are already clear from the controversy. First, Obama campaign officials, lacking any example of McCain ever pointing directly or indirectly at Obama's race as an issue in the campaign, have backpedaled rapidly away from any suggestion that their Republican opponent is using the very tactics Obama suggested on Wednesday.
Campaign manager David Plouffe was pressed hard during a conference call on Thursday for examples and could not point to any. An inquiry to the Obama campaign later in the day produced no immediate response and later no answer to a direct question asking for evidence to buttress Obama's suggestion that McCain would try to scare people into not voting for Obama because he's black.
Officials deny that Obama was suggesting that McCain is racist or running on a racially based message. But they believe the McCain campaign has embraced a low-road strategy and, hoping to contrast themselves with previous Democratic nominees, are prepared to respond to every attack.
Second, the sense of grievance over this issue within McCain's high command is deep and palpable. Those emotions led to the decision to have Davis call out Obama on Thursday with his extraordinarily provocative statement: "Barack Obama has played the race card and he played it from the bottom of the deck," he said. "It's divisive, negative, shameful and wrong."
Before all this happened, McCain advisers believed that the Obama campaign successfully pinned a racist label on Bill Clinton during the during primaries -- for comments that drew protests from some leading African American politicians -- and were determined not to let the same happen to McCain. Also, they take personally any suggestion from the Obama campaign that they are part of a campaign that would play the race card and are indignant about it.
Ironically, the McCain camp's celebrity ad comparing Obama to the vapid pair of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears drew some criticism as a subtle attempt to play the race card in the same way Republicans did against Harold Ford in the 2006 Senate race with the ad that concluded with an attractive young blonde woman saying, "Harold, call me." McCain advisers are as incensed over those suggestions as Obama advisers are over Davis's charge.
Third, the more that race is a topic of conversation, the more it could hurt Obama. Though he has been direct in warning about the use of scare tactics by his opponents, he is deeply aware that he is asking much of the electorate to cast a vote for someone with his biography and experience.
How he creates a comfort level with voters is a major challenge and one that he and his advisers believe cannot be done overnight. What he fears is that his opponents -- and here I do not refer directly to McCain -- will poison the environment with innuendo. He has struggled against outright falsehoods throughout the whole campaign. But simply making people feel comfortable with the truth of his candidacy is challenging.
Finally, the lack of respect between the two candidates continues to grow. Both began the general election with predictable statements about their desire to have a vigorous but respectful debate. Obama regularly pays tribute to McCain's service in Vietnam. McCain has spoken with admiration for Obama's obvious talents.
In reality, neither now seems to have a high opinion of the other. McCain's lack of respect has been evident for some time. He seems to view Obama as a pretender, who talks about change but has not been willing to cross his party or any important constituencies as a senator, which in McCain's view is necessary to truly change Washington. Obama certainly does honor McCain's service, but is dismayed over what he regards as continuous attacks from McCain.
That atmosphere made it all more inevitable that the kind of explosion that occurred this week would come at some point. Now it will be hard to go back.
No one expects the level of discord to stay at the level of the past few days, but there is every reason to believe that the remaining 95 days will see more such episodes. The stakes are too high, the conditions too ripe, and the campaigns too ready to go to the brink. Whether it could have been otherwise is a question only the campaigns themselves can answer.
Read more in the Washington Post
Maybe not as running mate, but Obama still needs Clinton
Jaime Castillo - My SA News - Aug. 3, 2008
The long slog known as the Democratic presidential nominating contest was all but over.
Hillary Clinton had just conceded the floor, and the 2008 nomination, to Barack Obama.
Yet state Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, a co-chairwoman of the upcoming Democratic National Convention in Denver, couldn't ignore the obvious.
“He's still got a lot of work to do with la gente,” said Van de Putte, using a common Spanish euphemism to refer to the Hispanic community.
That was several weeks ago.
Have those wounds, particularly the hurt feelings of older Latinas who saw their own struggle in Clinton's historic candidacy, had enough time to heal? Does it make a difference now that the buzz out of Washington, D.C., is Clinton almost assuredly won't be Obama's running mate?
“If you drive through my district, those Hillary signs aren't coming down yet,” said Van de Putte on Friday. “My hope is through the convention and shortly thereafter to make them (Hillary supporters) feel more comfortable.”
It is a unique position for the veteran lawmaker, who also backed Hillary's candidacy in the primary.
Here she is gearing up for the Democratic Party's ultimate national pep rally later this month and she's still concerned about the enthusiasm level in her predominantly Hispanic district, which covers pretty much all of western Bexar County.
It is a tougher problem for Obama as his race against Republican John McCain is tightening in some national polls. Older Latinos, particularly those of Mexican-American descent in the Southwest, tend to be solid Democratic voters, so any lack of zeal for Obama within any sector of the community could be problematic for his candidacy.
“I really believe they're going to vote for Senator Obama,” Van de Putte reasoned, “but I want them to have the level of engagement and excitement they would have had for a Hillary Clinton ticket.
“I think it will take a while,” she said.
Local political consultant JoAnn Ramon has built a career on cajoling area Democrats to vote straight-ticket in partisan elections. And she sees the same hurdles for Obama among “more experienced” Latinas in her South Side stomping grounds.
“The Latinas have been very adamant,” Ramon said. “If (Obama) doesn't take Hillary, they're going to skip that race on the ballot.”
The 64-year-old Ramon conceded that even a party loyalist like herself needed “a grieving period” to get past the end of Hillary's presidential candidacy.
“It's hard,” she said.
What Obama needs, Van de Putte and Ramon agreed, is for Clinton to vouch for him in person in heavily Hispanic areas. And it must go beyond the featured role that Clinton will be given at the national convention.
“You've got to believe it to sell it,” Ramon said. “Hillary is really going to have to say something, and she's really going to have to campaign for him.”
Van de Putte said it helps, but it's not enough, to simply acknowledge that Obama emphasizes the same priorities as the larger Hispanic community — education, health care and the economy.
To hear it from Hillary's lips, on the stump, could make all the difference in the world.
“It's like our attitude toward faith,” Van de Putte said. “We're never presumptive enough to bargain with God ourselves.
“We pray to saints and ask the virgen (Virgin Mary) to intercede on our behalf,” the senator said. “If Hillary does that on a political level for Obama, it could make a huge difference.”
Read more in My SA
The long slog known as the Democratic presidential nominating contest was all but over.
Hillary Clinton had just conceded the floor, and the 2008 nomination, to Barack Obama.
Yet state Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, a co-chairwoman of the upcoming Democratic National Convention in Denver, couldn't ignore the obvious.
“He's still got a lot of work to do with la gente,” said Van de Putte, using a common Spanish euphemism to refer to the Hispanic community.
That was several weeks ago.
Have those wounds, particularly the hurt feelings of older Latinas who saw their own struggle in Clinton's historic candidacy, had enough time to heal? Does it make a difference now that the buzz out of Washington, D.C., is Clinton almost assuredly won't be Obama's running mate?
“If you drive through my district, those Hillary signs aren't coming down yet,” said Van de Putte on Friday. “My hope is through the convention and shortly thereafter to make them (Hillary supporters) feel more comfortable.”
It is a unique position for the veteran lawmaker, who also backed Hillary's candidacy in the primary.
Here she is gearing up for the Democratic Party's ultimate national pep rally later this month and she's still concerned about the enthusiasm level in her predominantly Hispanic district, which covers pretty much all of western Bexar County.
It is a tougher problem for Obama as his race against Republican John McCain is tightening in some national polls. Older Latinos, particularly those of Mexican-American descent in the Southwest, tend to be solid Democratic voters, so any lack of zeal for Obama within any sector of the community could be problematic for his candidacy.
“I really believe they're going to vote for Senator Obama,” Van de Putte reasoned, “but I want them to have the level of engagement and excitement they would have had for a Hillary Clinton ticket.
“I think it will take a while,” she said.
Local political consultant JoAnn Ramon has built a career on cajoling area Democrats to vote straight-ticket in partisan elections. And she sees the same hurdles for Obama among “more experienced” Latinas in her South Side stomping grounds.
“The Latinas have been very adamant,” Ramon said. “If (Obama) doesn't take Hillary, they're going to skip that race on the ballot.”
The 64-year-old Ramon conceded that even a party loyalist like herself needed “a grieving period” to get past the end of Hillary's presidential candidacy.
“It's hard,” she said.
What Obama needs, Van de Putte and Ramon agreed, is for Clinton to vouch for him in person in heavily Hispanic areas. And it must go beyond the featured role that Clinton will be given at the national convention.
“You've got to believe it to sell it,” Ramon said. “Hillary is really going to have to say something, and she's really going to have to campaign for him.”
Van de Putte said it helps, but it's not enough, to simply acknowledge that Obama emphasizes the same priorities as the larger Hispanic community — education, health care and the economy.
To hear it from Hillary's lips, on the stump, could make all the difference in the world.
“It's like our attitude toward faith,” Van de Putte said. “We're never presumptive enough to bargain with God ourselves.
“We pray to saints and ask the virgen (Virgin Mary) to intercede on our behalf,” the senator said. “If Hillary does that on a political level for Obama, it could make a huge difference.”
Read more in My SA
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Saturday, August 2, 2008
HIllary speaks July 31, 2003
(Video by Simone P. DuBois and Toni Alves)
Taped Thursday July 31, 2008 around 5 p.m. at a "Unity" event held to help pay off Hillary's debt. The event took place at a private home in Los Altos, CA. Hillary on Being Nominated at Convention:
Hillary on Choice of Vice President:
Taped Thursday July 31, 2008 around 5 p.m. at a "Unity" event held to help pay off Hillary's debt. The event took place at a private home in Los Altos, CA. Hillary on Being Nominated at Convention:
Hillary on Choice of Vice President:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)