Hillary Messes With Texas

Cross-posted at Burnt Orange Report and Justice Addict and Open Left and Texans For Obama and on the fridge at your mom's.

Gonna do this one drive-by style and let the Dallas Morning News article speak for itself, by and large. This hasn't gotten out to the greater blogosphere yet, so here goes:

Hillary Clinton and her lawyers are trying to cast doubt on the precinct conventions.

Hillary Clinton and her lawyers are trying to deligitimize the concept of the convention itself.

Hillary Clinton and her lawyers are trying to drag out the delegate selection process for their benefit.

And ultimately, Hillary Clinton and her lawyers are probably trying to null and void as much of the convention/caucus aspect of Texas' delegate selection process as possible.

As final results from the Texas Democratic caucus remain unknown, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign wants signatures from the March 4 contest verified before party conventions are held around the state later this month.

In a letter sent to the state Democratic Party late Friday, the Clinton campaign requests the March 29 count and state Senate district conventions be postponed until the eligibility of an estimated 1 million caucus-goers are double checked.

Disgusting.

Update: Thanks for getting this on the Rec list, everybody! I just hope it stays Rec'd long enough for all the folks here to figure out how underhanded the desperate HRC campaign is trying to play this.

Update II: This is now X-posted everywhere.

•  I'm very angry about this

  My partner and I are precinct delegates to the county convention. We've already juggled our schedule, arranged for child care, etc, so that we can be there.

  If this happens, it may result in disenfranchising large numbers of people who knew they could attend on March 29th and took on the responsibility with that understanding. We have hard conflicts on numerous occasions in April and May.

  I hope the Texas Democratic Party fights this tooth and nail and does not give in.

  by Texas Gray Wolf on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:22:01 PM PDT

  •  As you should be

    The clintons had known the process that Texas used when Bill Clinton ran for president - looks like sour grapes to me - if I don't win, neither does he... Texans should live up to their motto -
    Don't mess with Texas and remind her of what an ungracious guest she is now that the primary is over in your state... SHAME ON YOU HILLARY - you are so shallow

    Pennsylvania - DON'T FALL for it - she's going to do to you what she does to every other state - dismiss you if she doesn't get the support she's counting on...look at her track record and previous statements!

    by marley619 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:55:29 PM PDT

    •  Also...

      Since I am in Texas I don't know if this is a latte state or a black state.

      I think the Hillary camp already voted for Wyoming being a black state (better let the 6 black people there know!)

      I ask again if someone, somewhere, could tell me what Texas is.

      by Lava20 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:21:43 AM PDT

      •  Texas is 1/3 rich people who don't need a prez

        The other 2/3 of the state matters.

        by George Hier on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:39:28 AM PDT

      •  Hello, I'm ruleoflaw and I'm irrelevant.

        Texas is quietly sipping into irrelevance.  
        I'm in Wisconsin.  We Cheeseheads are already irrelevant.  
        Bushco breaks the rules and then makes up new ones as it goes along.  Clinton apparently likes that M.O.  If you don't agree with her, your state doesn't matter,  your vote doesn't matter and you don't matter.

        by ruleoflaw on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:00:46 AM PDT

        •  Hillary is stooooopido!!!

          first this verification process is mandated by the state party and underway now all over Texas as names are cross verified against the rolls then delegate counts are adjusted, provisional counts were maintained at my convention and two results were reported but we did verify on the night of and the delegate counts were on and the same with a few Clinton provisionals proportional to obama provisionals. The is a worthless protest

          Second Hillary is again getting bad press for the caucus, her lawyers are fucking tools for not knowing thisis already rules

          by Steven R on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:05:17 AM PDT

          •  We checked every ID and every

            voter card/voter slip - which is why it took 3 hours to sign all 780 Obama caucusers.

            I, too, have set up my schedule to accommodate 3/29.  HRC might not like it, but her delegates better show up that day, if she doesn't want to lose MORE delegates at state level.

            Screw this.

            by Dem in the heart of Texas on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:17:59 AM PDT

            •  So did we

              It took 2 1/2 hours to sign in 400 people at my precinct.  I found exactly one person that I could not verify (I had 5 people helping with the signin)and I noted it when I turned in my paperwork.  I will never vote for an HRC ticket, period.

              by assa9 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:22:59 AM PDT

              •  I just want to say, You Texans Rock!

                First time I've ever felt strong positive feelings toward Texas (Austin enjoys permanent exemption from mockery) was the week of the voting.  And given how close it was and all the shenanigans from HRC, it's a good thing y'all worked your butts off.  I just wanted to interject another thank you into these reassurances that you have your act together and that you stand ready to counter any top-down, anti-democratic manipulation from Hillary.

                Thanks for the great, vitally important work!

                by geomoo on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:41:02 AM PDT

            •  Where I was, no one checked a thing.

              The list was passed around, and everyone there signed in, presumably, and presumably only for themselves, and presumably they were entitled to.  The District went 92% for Hillary.  She should be careful what she wishes for - if those names are checked, will they all be registered voters who voted in the primary?  

              by DrJeremy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:20:59 PM PDT

            •  you need to invite Hillary to your

              grieving room. She is not adjusting well to her losses.

              She is like a child no one has ever said no to. When she has a fuck up like Her health care plan (which deserved to die) she blames it on someone else. Sounds just like a POTUS I know of.

              by samddobermann on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:20:21 AM PDT

          •  What about this part of the article?

            The letter came after the Clinton campaign said party officials told them this week it would not verify the eligibility of all caucus-goers before March 29. The county and district caucuses will whittle down the delegates before the state convention in June, when the final delegate count for the Texas caucus will be known.

            I don't think her request is out of line in such a close race, and taking into consideration the effects of momentum. Your anger is misplaced.

            by Burned on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:04:13 AM PDT

            •  It wasn't a close race. She lost, ~60/40.

              by khereva on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:35:02 AM PDT

              •  I was referring to the nationwide race.

                Did you read my post? The reference to momentum should have clued you in.

                I won't step into the caucus vs. primary thing further than to say this:
                In my opinion, one is stupid and one is not.

                Clarity:
                I do not support either candidate at this time. My vote was lost.
                And a Promise:
                I will support the Democratic nominee.

                by Burned on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:44:29 AM PDT

                •  Nationwide isn't close either.

                  Barack has an almost insurmountable delegate lead.  It's virtually impossible for her to win without shenanigans.

                  by LisainNYC on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:38:47 PM PDT

                  •  Yes it is close.n/t/

                    by Burned on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:31:25 PM PDT

                •  Actually, they reflect

                  two different ideas of what the best way is for democracy to be exercised.  It is possible to argue, even, that caucuses are better, because only people who really care about the results will make the time to go - so the people who participate in caucuses are likely to be more informed, and have thought this through more thoroughly, than people who vote in primaries.  Plus, in theory, there's more discussion, more give and take, people are less likely to just show up and pull a random switch.  Also, there is the idea that it builds communities.  

                  Just to put that out there.

                  by DrJeremy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:24:43 PM PDT

                  •  I call bullshit on this

                    the people who participate in caucuses are likely to be more informed, and have thought this through more thoroughly, than people who vote in primaries.

                    And I won't get caught up in this argument anyway.
                    After this is over maybe, but not now. Obama does too well in the caucuses for there to be an unbiased discussion here.

                    by Burned on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:30:29 PM PDT

                    •  Just saying, it's a theory. n/t

                      by DrJeremy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:18:23 PM PDT

                    •  Nice selective quoting,

                      do you work for Hillary?  

                      The line was that it was possible to argue . . . due to the fact that it's such a bigger pain in the neck to go to a caucus, so you'd only go if you really cared about the results.  I wasn't arguing it, just saying it's possible, and people should recognize that argument, which you never see stated in the MSM.

                      by DrJeremy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:22:12 PM PDT

                      •  NO, I teach Special Ed in an elementary school.

                        I voted for Edwards.
                        My interest now is in promoting parity and in debunking lies for either side. I realize it might not seem that way, but that's because dkos is antiClinton to the point of making absurd accusations about her and since this is where I hang out the most, this is where I choose to promote equality and truth. I have defended Obama, it's just not as necessary because you guys do such a good job of swarming out every time someone kicks at the anthill.

                        do you work for Hillary?

                        WTF is wrong with you that makes you ask such a stupid question? Don't you think this proves that you've gone a bit off the rails? Not in liking Obama, that is a choice for us all to make without being blasted for it, but in assuming that everyone else that questions anything you say is automatically against Obama, for Clinton and needs some belittling crap thrown at them.

                        I'm about to throw up my hands. :)
                        About...

                        by Burned on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:14:38 AM PDT

                •  Clinton sure got momentum, all right

                  With every contest, she's falling further and further behind...

                  by Big River Bandido on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:56:21 PM PDT

                  •  I did not say she had momentum.

                    She obviously does not.
                    Where did you see that?

                    by Burned on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:32:14 PM PDT

                    •  Um

                      In your post upthread, you wrote:  

                      I don't think her request is out of line in such a close race, and taking into consideration the effects of momentum.

                      The implication of that statement is that Clinton's campaign already has momentum, and is attempting to leverage it to her advantage in the later stages of the process.  

                      by Big River Bandido on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:56:07 PM PDT

                      •  It does not imply that.

                        Since she doesn't HAVE it, it implies that it is important to GET. Which we all know is true.

                        You guys are nuts. :)
                        Anyone not for Obama is WRONG WRONG WRONG, even if they aren't voting for Clinton.
                        And even then you have to make shit up to make them seem Clintonian.
                        What is up with that anyway?

                        by Burned on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:00:38 AM PDT

                        •  I think someone

                          needs to learn to write more clearly.  

                          by Big River Bandido on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:18:31 AM PDT

                          •  Actually

                            Obama vs. Clinton blindness affects comprehension skills. THAT has been proven on both sides.

                            But thanks for the insult.
                            It wouldn't be a good O v C thread if I didn't get one on every attempt I made to counter a false accusation.

                            by Burned on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:05:34 AM PDT

          •  Why is John Edwards endorcing Hillary?

            David Ignatius reported this on Chris Matthews this morning.
            This cannot happen!!!!

            by scottiex2 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:45:15 PM PDT

        •  This is ridiculous......

          ....because trying to get verification of signatures in a caucus process that was rife with irregularities is a sin.

          A sin I say.

          by apolitik on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:45:34 AM PDT

          •  Please post a diary with your proof

            I'm a precicnt chair and I've talked to many many people from other precincts.  No one has any first hand knowledge of these 'irregularities'.  Certainly there are a few people who got through on the sign-in sheets without verification but the number will not change the delegate count significantly.  We all worked very hard to run fair conventions and we resent outsiders making wild accusations with no proof.

            by assa9 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:30:40 AM PDT

            •  Clinton campaign says they got 2000 complaints

              According to the article this diary is based on.
              That is why they are requesting verification.
              It's not going to hurt Obama.

              by Burned on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:20:06 AM PDT

            •  I was there, caucus watching for Obama.

              In the districts we were in, there was no attempt made to verify signatures, the lists were simply passed around.  These districts, by the way, went heavily for Hillary, mine was 92%.  So she may not like the results she gets if signatures are checked.

              But then, that's not what this is about, it's about delaying results and making it harder for people to attend the next level of caucuses.

              by DrJeremy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:27:13 PM PDT

              •  You are right

                She might not like it.
                But she has the right to ask that they be verified. As does Obama if he so wishes.

                by Burned on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:33:53 PM PDT

                •  She has the right to do

                  lots of things, but are the the right thing to do?  And is she doing them for the right reason?

                  by DrJeremy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:17:38 PM PDT

      •  I am here now, and I have seen a LOT

        of latte-slurping conservatives here in the Starbucks parking lots as I drive by.

        "If the Goverment is a car setting out to give every one a ride to work, then for 40 years the Republicans have been puncturing the tires, pouring sand in the gas tank, stealing the distributor cap, and, whenever they can get their hands on the wheel, driving it straight into the nearest ditch and then, pointing to the wreckage as the tow truck backs up to it, saying, 'See, this proves that people were meant to walk.'
        And they do this so that they don't have to chip in on gas." - Lance Mannion

        by LostInTexas on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:43:08 AM PDT

    •  clinton adviser helped write the rules!

      clinton's texas campaign advisor, garry mauro, helped write the caucus rules two decades ago.  don't believe for one second that team clinton didn't know the rules when they went into this.  it's total bullshit.

      by anna on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:59:06 AM PDT

      •  Irony...

        "It is the Party's responsibility to ensure the integrity of the precinct convention process by making sure that the Rules were followed," the letter states.

        Make sure that the Rules were followed...  Is this really the basis of her argument (MI and FL anyone)?

        At least I finally understand, and would be happy to copy edit p 13, paragraph 3, line 7 onward of the "Bush / Rove Clinton Handbook of Campaign Strategery"

        1. State Party Rules Matter

        2. State Party Rules Matter if you are in TX, FL, MI, PA, NY, AZ, AK, NM, NJ, NH, RI, OK, TN, or CA, but not AL, AR, CO, CT, DE, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NC, ND, OR, SC, SD, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY

        3. TX and FL are extra important, because the've done so much for American democracy since 2000.  We should reward their Democratic Party's excellent leadership by contesting their inability to follow Party rules [unless counter to points 1), 2), 4), and 5).]

        4. Federal Party Rules Do Not Matter

        5. Federal Party Rules Do Not Matter, except we will honor all superdelegates (i.e. provide political kickbacks) who vote for the Clinton campaign.

        by jrchicago on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:44:46 AM PDT

        •  Mixed up Arkansas (AR) and Alaska (AK)

          Sorry, but I see this all the time, and feel duty-bound to correct, especially because AR is the one that "matters" and AK is "irrelevant".

          by SouthernFried on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:35:22 AM PDT

        •  CO

          She messed with CO

          I just returned from my Colorado Cty caucus...

          and what a load of crap they were flinging

          it worked.

          by Spoonfulofsugar on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:44:59 AM PDT

        •  Don't forget that 3 other states jumped ahead,

          along with MI and FL, but so far there's no vocal debate about seating their delegates, or redoing them, or apportioning their delegates according.  

          So, really, at best, we'll end up this pre-convention season with 45 states where state democratic leadership has followed the rules defined in the 2004 convention and state rules.

          There should be a consistent penalty applied, proportional to the degree to which rules were violated.  Then, we need to dump this tradition of state X always gets to go first.  Time to use a random draw.  Perhaps grouping states by size and region, and holding all primaries on 3 primary dates.  Save the 'biggest states' for last, since campaigning in them costs the most.

          by antirove on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:40:23 PM PDT

      •  They had meetings with their precinct captains

        for weeks prior to the precinct conventions.  They knew the rules as well as the Obama campaign supporters.  They just don't like the outcome.  The reason why she "won" the primary was because of the large number of republicans that voted for her.  Unfortunately for her, they did not come back to caucus for her.  I am so sick of her bitching about do-overs, wooing superdelegates, and doing anything she can to make the Texas caucuses turn into a win for her.

        by rlmeade on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:26:09 PM PDT

  •  I am a delegate in Dallas County

    and I am also angry about this though I don't have the same obligations as you.  This will cause a problem for a large number of Obama's supporters and will ultimately delegitimize the caucuses, which is, of course, the goal.

    I tend to view these tactics as either hail mary passes or simply attempts to cast doubt onto the process.  I really don't think the March 29th date will be postponed.  If it is, my repulsion from HRC will finally be complete.

    by dalliance13 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:04:46 AM PDT

    •  This is the thing I just don't

      understand about HRC. Her attempts to 'gain' delegates or eliminate Obama's by extremely questionable means using this type of tactic, she loses so much more by disenfranchising not only those who support Obama, but those who are sitting on the fence with the primaries yet to happen. Does she truly think that if she 'gains' any delegates this way and goes on the 'win' the nomination, she'll have the support she'll need to beat McCain in November? I am just having such a difficult time believing that she and her campaign are that clueless.

      Reading Maureen Dowd in this morning's paper, she opines that Obama is naive as he honorably strives to keep personal attacks and underhanded tactics from determining the political discussions. I have to wonder if she fails to see the irony of her statements, as attack-dog politics continue to undermine Clinton's support and campaign?

      This is such a train wreck. Please, someone wake me NOW!

      by bubbalie 517 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:54:28 AM PDT

      •  Barack is more presidential.

        With the sweep and scope of his responses and sense of judgment, Barack's behavior is more presidential every day. He demonstrates long-term judgment, more statesmanship and conciliatory understanding, and a sense of measured behavior - and responsibility - that HRC has not and probably will not demonstrate.

        She broke first, she took the low road of her own free will. She did not have to do that and be subsumed by her ambition and goals. This has highlighted Barack's sense of the nation and the future and confirms he has a vision to move this nation and fulfill our expectations.

        HRC is lost in the present and playing a hand based on the past.

        by walkshills on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:33:57 AM PDT

      •  They aren't clueless.

        Clinton's campaign is hanging on by a thread. That thread happens to be called uncertainty. The more uncertainty and confusion her campaign causes the longer the media narrative will be that she's still a relevant part of this contest. And unfortunately for the Democratic party, it's working right now.

        She's not playing this for the long term. She's playing for right now, and hoping this ADD nation of ours will forget everything she's pulled before the next contest.  It's the sad narrative of our nation that this tactic can actually work.

        by LSBuchanan on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:56:42 AM PDT

    •  Mine is complete either way

      by assa9 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:32:52 AM PDT

    •  In Tarrant Co, SD 9 bought liability insurance!`

      For that day! at TCCC Southeast campus.

      We have had a terrible time even finding a place to have the convention on that date.

      This cannot be moved without money being lost from county party people that is already strapped for cash.

      What are these people thinking?

      by wdmosely on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:10:29 PM PDT

  •  Bush v. Gore II

    The betrayal of the Democratic Party is complete. The Clintons are now full-fledged members of the dark side, pursuing the same tactics as Bush...

    by The Bagof Health and Politics on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:16:50 AM PDT

    •  Thank You!

      by 57andFemale on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:23:18 AM PDT

    •  Hillary IS Bush!

      To be fair, she may have more progressive policies,
      but her win-at-all-costs, warp reality beyond all recognition reminds me of none other than Bush, and Mark Penn reminds me of none other than (a less intelligent) Rove.

      Sometimes people say McCain would be 4 more years of the same.
      In terms of unplausible deniability of reality, Hillary has the Bush administration written all over her.

      SO sad and scary.

      by interdependence on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:05:32 AM PDT

      •  However she voted before

        I just don't turst that she did it because she really thought it was the best, I think she did it because she knew we were watching each and every vote. She will change if she is ever elected.

        Sorry but i don't trust anything she's said or done in the past as a basis of validity.

        by Wary on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:22:38 AM PDT

      •  McCain/Clinton 2008

        Can this happen?

        by PlanetTreasures on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:25:38 AM PDT

        •  She'd have to cut in front of Lieberman.

          Joementantrum called first dibs on VP slot with his side-saddling bi-partisan (tri-partisan?) endorsement of straight-shooting McCain.   Try and de-legitimize Joe when he's touring with McCain in Iraq, as the mighty band of Surge Brothers, while she's invading Texas to overthrow caucuses.  

          Maybe Texans should be painting their blue thumbs purple to make a point to Clintons, Inc. and the media.  I suppose they may elect to select another digit to color, for a vivid digital communication that's harder to ignore.

          by antirove on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:50:04 PM PDT

      •  The Lee Atwater tradition...

        ... via Karl Rove (WaPo last summer):

        The Clintons recognize the skill Rove has brought to politics and admire his craft, if not his ideology. Just days after the November 2004 election, Bill Clinton pulled Rove aside at the dedication of the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Arkansas. "Hey, you did a marvelous job, it was just marvelous what you did," Clinton told Rove, according to the book "The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008," by John F. Harris and Mark Halperin. "I want to get you down to the library. I want to talk politics with you. You just did an incredible job, and I'd like to really get together with you and I think we could have a great conversation."

        by Land of Enchantment on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:40:44 AM PDT

        •  If this is a true story...

          ...I want to vomit

          by interdependence on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:44:56 AM PDT

        •  Dining with the devil

          will get you a golden invitation for future deals.

          I find this is severely misplaced affection and respect.

          There are some barriers you don't cross no matter how clever you think you are because you give up some access to your attention and allow relations to form.

          by walkshills on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:40:47 AM PDT

    •  I can't agree

      Third paragraph of the article

      The Clinton campaign wrote they received more than 2,000 complaints of violations following the historic Texas turnout, which was perhaps the nation's largest caucus ever.

      I wish Gore fought this hard for the Florida vote; life would be so much better.  

      by math monkey on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:59:11 AM PDT

      •  The difference: the complaints vs HRC...

        ...were confirmed. The so-called "2,000 complaints" vs Obama weren't.

        She tried a Nevada again, and it didn't work.

        ay, pobrecita.

        by khereva on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:13:48 AM PDT

        •  Neither were included

          I would also like to know the nature of Clinton's complaints and why we should disregard them.  Are they petty and minor, or substantive?  Is there any proof?  Were the complaints made immmediately, or were they made after preliminary findings were released.  Who made them?  All these are valid questions.  I can not evaluate Hillary's actions, for or against, without knowing this.

          This diarist concealed through editing the reason for Hillary's actions instead of allowing us to evaluate those reasons for ourselves.

          The diarist is presenting us with the effect, and letting our own preconcieved notions supply the cause.  That is spin, not substance.

          by math monkey on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:34:47 AM PDT

          •  Not so.

            The diarist was no more obligated to track down every one of Team Hillary's complaints than the state party is to satisfy Hillary that their system meets her standards.

            by khereva on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:36:25 AM PDT

  •  They checked my ID where I went...

    Here's what happen when I went to caucus in Texas.

    1.  All the people who had not early voted voted.

    2.  We all gathered in the cafeteria at the school.  The place was packed!

    3.  There were 4 precints in the school so each was broken up into separate rooms.

    4.  We got in line and waited.

    5.  We we got to the front, we showed our proof of voting, (or voter registration card etc.)  The volunteers then verified the information.  THEN they allowed you to sign in with your information.  The information sheet asked for everything except for your blood type.

    The best part of the night was when the guy in front of me said he  wanted to caucus for HUCKABEE!  The Volunteer politely told him that Republicans were not caucusing.

    I have pictures.  Not sure how to upload them but if someone lets me know I would be happy to.  I though every thing went great.  Everyone in the neighborhood was there.

    SHENANIGANS!

    by Lava20 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:19:33 AM PDT

    •  Thats how I thought it was suppose to go

      but not in my precinct in Kaufman County.

      by edalex on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:41:24 AM PDT

      •  Tarrant County here!

        All went well.  I don't why anyone would show up, stand in line, have everything verified.  What should we do now.

        I have pictures.  Should I forward these to the Obama people.

        I have pictures of the sign in sheets.  The lines.  I even took pictures of the volunteers.

        Not sure how to post them here.  I would be happy to.  If someone could tell me how I would be happy to.

        by Lava20 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:52:45 AM PDT

        •  Sorry about the punctuation and spelling...

          I really shouldn't multi-task.  I'm bored, multi-tasking and should really pay more attention.  Sorry folks.  I actually have a good command of the English language.  Just distracted by my sprained ankle, and this stupid youtube of a robot fighting a puppy.

          by Lava20 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:55:44 AM PDT

        •  Set up a free account on Photobucket or Flickr

          Or a similar service--there are a number of them on the web. Once you do that you can upload the photos and post a link.

          That's the easiest way I can think of.

          by AustinCynic on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:32:34 AM PDT

          •  Good options. I find picasa easiest. -eom

            by MAORCA on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:46:34 AM PDT

      •  Mine was a train wreck

        I hate to say it, but it was.  We had a slew of people that we could not verify. We had them all sign in on a separate list that we titled "provisional".  That was the best we could do.

        The system needs to be changed.  As an Obama supporter I say this.  It needs to be changed.  BUT NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FRIGGIN ELECTION.  Rules get changed either before or after.  NEVER during the game!

        BTW---my precinct went Obama 3-1!

        by DallasLiberal on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:21:21 AM PDT

    •  step 1. sign up for a free