ShareThisSearch the Web for "caucus disruptions" and allegations of caucus-vote disruptions lodged against supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton predominate among the first 20 links that come up. I have obtained a copy of a memo written by a Clinton campaign volunteer in Washington state intended only for other Clinton volunteers in subsequent caucus states (specifically for Texas campaign volunteers). It warns them of "caucus disruption strategies" by supporters of Sen. Barack Obama.The memo was written by a University of North Carolina professor emerita of anthropology who served as a volunteer Clinton precinct committee officer in the Washington state caucuses last month. It warned other volunteer organizers about so-called "strategies" alleged to have been observed by herself and by Clinton volunteers in Iowa and Nevada. The volunteer, in a phone conversation I had with her, asked that her name not be used. Granted, these events were "observed" weeks ago, but are still worth considering. Here are the relevant parts of the memo:"1. Individuals arriving all at once in large groups can disrupt the caucus by making it difficult to keep track of sign-in sheets, among other things. It created crowding in one caucus site that I am aware of and there weren't enough chairs for people to use. Other behaviors that can make it difficult for the caucus to run smoothly are deliberate disruptions with things like chanting, sign waving, dancing or singing. The Precinct Chair (or Caucus Chair) will need to insist on order."2. Individuals may arrive who are not registered to vote in a particular precinct with the story that 'they just moved there.' Some places where this has been observed, the person really didn't fit the picture of somebody who had 'just moved into' the precinct. They were allowed to register to vote and to caucus. (I do not know whether this individual's vote has been certified or not.) Bottom line: know your precinct demographics and make note of individuals who are registering to vote on site. (If they are so excited about participating, why haven't they registered before.)"3. Supporters for a particular candidate, such as Senator Clinton, have arrived at caucus sites early to decorate and organize and been told that 'the building was locked.' When they are finally allowed into the building they see that signs for other candidates had already been posted. Bottom line: know who you are dealing with in terms of the caucus coordinator ... This will usually be some volunteer for the local Democratic Party."This memo is important in that Obama has fared way better than Clinton in caucus states on the whole and such tactics may have figured in those successes. From a balance perspective, it is equally important to keep in mind that similar countercharges are circulating to be sure among Obama volunteers -- it is just that none of this nature has crossed my desk in particular. If I receive any from reliable parties, I will be happy to write about them in subsequent columns.It is further important to note that this professor is a volunteer, not a Clinton campaign official. All that said, since Clinton's victories in the Ohio and Texas primaries, much has been made of her ability to win primary votes and Obama's ability to win caucus states. How much of his ability to win caucus votes has been predicated upon these alleged tactics? I have no answer to that question and pose it to you, dear reader, to answer for yourself.Given the above information and the fact many of the states Obama has won so far have been "reliably Republican ... such as Idaho, Utah, Georgia and South Carolina. Democrats have no chance in those states come November. Meanwhile, Clinton will have won at least eight of the 11 largest states, including must-win battleground states such as Florida and Ohio ..." (this written by Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Jonathan Last this week), the question of "electability" must be revisited.And although many polls have shown Obama to be the tougher competitor against Republican John McCain in a general-election match-up, one wonders whether that continues to be the case.(Bonnie Erbe is a TV host and writes this column for Scripps Howard News Service. E-mail bonnieerbe(at)CompuServe.com.)
Democratic caucus disruptions
Submitted by SHNS on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 13:17
Paying taxes unites us. It also divides us. People can pay five and even six times more in state and local taxes than other folks in similar circumstances making similar incomes.
Who's got your number?
In one of the fastest-growing forms of identity theft, crooks are stealing tax refunds by swiping personal information and using it to trick the Internal Revenue Service.
Query whether you have a teensy-weensy bias toward Hillary . . .
I recommend you read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/12/proobama-governors-chall_n_91167.html
And: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/hope4/gGBThv
Obama has won 29 states to Hillary's 15 - almost two to one. Can you tell me how many of those 29 states were caucuses? He is ahead of Hillary in the popular vote by over 702,000.
About the caucuses, what credible sources have you consulted? A memo from an unpaid Hillary operative? Have you asked the Obama campaign about what the Hillary camp did in Nevada - including Bill Clinton? Did you know that Bill Clinton had to be shoved out of one of the Nevada caucuses - because he would not leave on his own?
If you would like to interview some people who actually attended the Nevada Caucuses (that Hillary actually won), just let me know. If not, that's ok. I sense a teenwy-weensy bias in your writing. And, ultimately, your bias will not affect the final results.
Nonsense
As a participant in the WA state caucus, I can say that I saw none of the things described here, nor have I heard any serious allegations of misbehavior at other locations (and I've talked to lots of people).
Individuals arriving all at once - perhaps, say, at 1pm, which is when the caucus was scheduled? Or maybe they arrive 10 minutes early because they carpooled together? How dastardly! And anyway, at least in WA state, the sign up sheets aren't available until the PCO actually calls the meeting to order, and 95% of people were already assembled and waiting by that point.
The suspicion of people registering on-site that you give above is laced with veiled racism. If you know that only rich white people live in your precinct, immediately cast doubts on anyone who doesn't match that demographic registering on-site? Preposterous, and profoundly against the encouragement to vote and inclusiveness that are characteristic of the Democratic party. I did see quite a few people with "stories" of having just moved, registering on site; just fine, and not the job of an ordinary citizen to question. That's between the voter, the secretary of state, and the democratic party. Voter registration forms were mailed in immediately afterwards, and I understand that party people have been combing through the signup sheets and delegate listings, striking out names of people that weren't properly registered. Hardly the cause for paranoia that the post implies.
As far as the third point, I found the party volunteers running the show to be going out of their way to behave fairly and independently, to the point that they were stand-off-ish and reluctant to accept help from people in the campaigns.
I think Obama's success in caucuses simply goes to this - he has inspired greater enthusiasm in his supporters than any other candidate. Since caucusing is much more of a chore than simply casting a ballot, that extra level of enthusiasm shows in the results. Looking for evil plots is a convenient way to ignore that, I suppose.
As to the final point, study some other elections, and you'll find that primary wins in swing states don't always lead to general election wins in those states, and losses in those states often lead to general election wins. Polling of how people would vote given Clinton vs McCain, or Obama vs McCain, is the only good predictor at this stage. And even that is suspect, because the general election campaign hasn't started yet.
Caucuses skewed?
I am writing in regards to your editorial column that appeared in the Las Vegas Sun editorial page, 03/13/2008. Your assumption is absurd.
If you had even investigated what occured here in Nevada vs. Wyoming, you would find out just how silly your presumption is.
Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton signing pictures, books.....and then asking voters are they going to vote for Hillary Clinton or telling voters to vote for her after receiving autographs.
It is columists like you that give journalism a bad name. How could you assume that one memo from a volunteer in Wyoming leads you to wonder whether Senator Obama is the stronger candidate against John McCain. A retired professor, who claims no dog in this fight. Sure, that's why the memo was to the Clinton campaign.
People like you, (Media) have done more to promote the racism and bias sensed in this election, than any surrogate's quotes.
Why not try and report accurate information? I wonder how long your newspaper will keep people who report on a caucus of 9000 vs 100,000 plus, and base your total premise on one memo.
I was a precinct captain in Nevada, talked with many people state-wide concerning January 19 caususes in Nevada. To this date all expressed distain for the Clinton campaign methods and behavior. Many in Nevada feel that the results were skewed towards her win.
However, things done in darkness have a way of defeating itself. Senator Obama won the most delegates!
I may not be a journalist or have the words and grammer that comes with journalist credentials. But, I am fair, and strive to use facts to justify my positions. Can I be wrong in my conslusions, yes. Why, because I depend on the news to be accurate in their reporting by which I form my thoughts and opinions.
Thanks for furthering the dialogue on what really allowed Senator Obama to win more caucuses than Senator Clinton.
I give him an A+ for organization and inspiration. I know you wonder if he can still be seen as, "A Tough Competitor?" I wonder if you can still be seen as a credible and fair media person?
Sincerely,
A Voter In Nevada