Clinton Claiming Widespread Fraud By Obama, Ramping Up Legal War To String Out Primary

I'm in the process of fleshing this out, but it's big news that the MSM isn't understanding fully, and I wanted to put it on people's radar a.s.a.p. The Clinton camp called a press conference tonight, which I attended telephonically, to accuse the Obama Texas campaign of "statewide systemic" abuses of the caucus process. They've "lawyered up" -- had a lawyer on the call -- and are expressly keeping open the possibility of legally contesting the Texas caucuses long into the future.

Among other things, they claim that Obama supporters have stolen caucus materials and chairs needed by Clinton supporters, "taking control" of caucus sites, and locking out "long lines" of Clinton supporters to ensure the caucuses go Obama's way. They also confirmed that they will press their Convention delegates to insist that the Florida and Michigan delegations be seated at the DNC convention in August, WITHOUT the revotes that everyone besides the Clintonites are urging as a fair way to honor those voters without being unfair to candidates (Obama's name didn't even appear on the Michigan ballot, but Clinton wants those pro-Clinton-by-default delegates seated anyway).

It was just a few hours ago, but I did predict this exact scenario unfolding before all these claims of scurrilous behavior slammed into the media machine like the Galveston Hurricane of 1900:

The Clinton camp seems intent on building a "record" of supposed campaign violations in Texas, which is critical to them and which they're very afraid they'll lose, so that they can file a lawsuit challenging the results and then use that as an excuse to stay in the race even though it hurts the party ("we can't drop out now, we don't even know how the courts will rule in Texas").

Why do I think they're intentionally manufacturing a lawsuit? Easy: they've pretty much said so...

Continue reading this post at Vichy Democrats...

Follow M.S. Bellows, Jr. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/msbellows

Comments

[riona]

11:35 AM on 03/05/2008

The Clinton campaign didn't create a lawsuit - Obama supporters were disenfranchising Clinton supporters. No campaign with this much at stake, would run the risk of making false accusations. There was widespread systematic fraud last night in Texas. Why do you think Obama has been winning almost every caucus?

Is that the way we want out system to work? Is that the real change we want for America? A stolen election?

[waynesmyer]

08:43 AM on 03/07/2008

Let's see now! 80 precincts in NYC and not one vote for Obama? Does the Hillary and Charming Billy own stock in the Diabold Voting Machine Company? Is Hillary a true blonde? Just how close is Hillary to Little Johnny McCain?
"We don't gots to show you our income tax returns, Gringo" yours truy, "Two For The Price Of One" Clintons

[Mandelay]

11:09 AM on 03/05/2008

The Obama campaign does seem to have a stronger winning pattern in caucus states. With Texas being a "two step" state, it gives a great opportunity to examine these charges of wrongdoing and the process itself. Over two million people came out to cast individual ballots in the primary. Clinton won a close race. If Obama is winning the caucus count, and if he's winning by a very big margin, the process and allegations should be examined more closely. Texas, with its "same day/two step" gives a unique opportunity to do so. Who knows, we may find out that there are "caucus creatures" and "primary people" and, even in the same state on the same day, they won't vote the same way.

[Scott Bellows]

12:33 PM on 03/05/2008

Mandelay: that's a very astute observation -- in fact, I was working on a piece about the caucus system, and Texas as a unique test of both methods, when this other issue arose and pulled me away. One thing I find interesting is that caucuses tend to be more lopsided than elections; some people attribute that to campaigns or interest groups stacking the deck, but I suspect it has more to do with the fact that caucusgoers have time to interact, discuss issues, listen to others, and work for consensus. There also are differences in the political awareness and intensity of caucusgoers, but your comment makes me wonder whether there are other demographic or even psychological differences as well -- ie, what exactly is a "caucus creature" or a "primary person" (love those terms!).

S.B.

[riona]

05:02 PM on 03/05/2008

There very well could be in other caucus states - but not in Texas. The precinct conventions in Texas, the second step of the Texas 2 step process, merely consists of people showing up and signing in. It is not Iowa. There are no speeches, no second rounds to persuade non-viables or undecideds, etc. The second step is suppose to be just showing up, signing in, and leaving. The large discrepancies between the Texas 1st step primary and 2nd step "precinct conventions", should concern everyone.