looks like someone drank your milkshake, sucker.

Clinton supporters have also suggested they would vote for McCain if Obama wins the nomination...but I suppose that is okay with you?

Nothing cited here is in any way illegal.  By definition it is NOT voter fraud.

There were more than a few repubs at my Washington State caucus.  Some of them got up and spoke with total sincerity, supporting Obama. The place was so packed, several precints had to caucus outside the building, which they did, returning a resounding victory to Obama.  This is democracy in action, on a scale not seen in a long time, if ever.  One MILLION individual donors, beholden to no stockholders whatsoever. Our state went big for Obama, and we're pleased and proud.

Actually I've wondered that - so many of them were open primaries or open caucuses. And if they register as Dems for a day, then revert back to Republicanism, how can you really measure this?

Can you point us to exit polls that say he won the registered Dem vote in all 11 contests?

And you get that from where?

My state provides a very instructive example.

The Obama people mobbed the caucuses, and he won by 60+ percent.  Then there was a statewide ballot, and he couldn't even eke out 50%.

I was disenfrancised because I was in the hospital.  So were the pro-Hillary nurses who had to care for me that day.  So was my friend Cheryl who lost her job in the mill and had to clean houses that day.  So were all the older people who can't navigate huge parking lots, long halls in schools, and tiny hard chairs for hours.  So were all the other people in hospitals, nursing homes, care centers, and those homebound.  So were all the people who have to work on Saturdays.  So were all the people with children who couldn't afford a babysitter for several hours, or who had to spend their Saturday caring for the children they barely get to see all week as well as countless house chores.  

And on and on.

Caucuses are for the LATTE ELITES and party hacks and young people who have both the time and physical ability to get to such events.

A popular vote is far more fair.  Yet the state Dems refuse to give us even a percentage -- whereas at least the state GOP party gives the popular vote a percentage.

Maybe avoid the word fraud. Obama's campaign IS encouraging people to leave the Democratic party.

"We encourage returning to your former party after the Primary."

Maybe change the title to Obama: Leave the Democratic Party, But Vote Me First

People using the "ratings" function should henceforth be required to understand what they're for.

This comment getting a "troll rating" is patently absurd.

Umm.. yeah, "gaming" the system. That's cheating to most people.

It's sleazy and it's widespread.  In my caucus you did not have to show any proof of being registered as a particular party, you could proclaim yourself a Dem for a day at ours. And.. people were encouraged to do so, just to vote against Hillary. And the republicans are donated a massive amount to Obama's campaign. Don't be naive to believe it's just to keep Hillary out, it's because they know who the stronger candidate is on the issues that matter in the General Election.

Gaming a primary (as you call it), and winning cacuses (because it's sooo cool to.. like.. vote for Obama then go get a beer), is nothing like the General Election cycle, where EVERYONE votes.  

But I don't want to spoil the ending for all the people caught up in this majorly chill Obama fun.  

Show me the law stating this is voter fraud.

Voter fraud is a clearly defined set of crimes under the law. Tehre are various conditions that fall under the category of voter fraud such as attempting to vote more than once or attempting to vote under another person's name.

One may alter one's aprty affiliation at whim and in accordance with election laws. IF the laws of a state allow a person to change party affiliation for a day, then change again the day after, how is this voter fraud?

Thanks for the lesson in civil law. Now that would be something... a blogger sued for alleging fraud in an election. You comment was slightly over the top.

And to think I used to respect you when you were on DU years ago. Now you've jumped the Obama shark.

Do you have any evidence that these voters will not support Obama? They have once, it is not unreasonable to think they might again.

ask a lawyer or at least look up fraud in the dictionary.

...to make certain it is seen by others.

The dictionary def'n of fraud, from Merriam-Webster (m-w.com):

1 a: deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b: an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick
2 a: a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : impostor; also : one who defrauds : cheat b: one that is not what it seems or is represented to be

Fraud can be a crime but the word fraud itself does not denote crime - rather, it denotes trickery or cheating.  Yes, there are some laws about fraud, but that doesn't mean that linfar is using the word in a legal fashion.

This is exactly what's bothered me about this primary - people said don't vote Hillary, Republicans hate her. Vote Obama, Republicans love him.

So the Republicans win. In our primary. Let's just do whatever the Republicans say.

He has all these privatizer economists on his advisor team. Social Security? Obama says it's "in crisis" and "everything's on the table" as for what to do about it. Hillary says while there may be minor shortfalls in a few decades, adjustments can be made to fix that. Hillary says it's a myth and a Republican talking point that SS is in "crisis", and she's right!

Obama is open to vouchers for public schools. This list goes on.

And all this campaign I've never heard Obama say anything about Democrats. When has he said "progressive"? He says "Republicans, Independents" should come vote for him. And if Democrats want to vote for him, that's fine too.

And these Republicans voting for Obama now - can we count on their vote in November? I can see many reverting back to party loyalty and voting McCain.

I hope the hardcore HRC supporters will give some thought to the GE.  Half of the country will never vote for HRC.  She will either lose or barely win.  Neither situation is good for the progressive agenda.  And, to make gains in Congress it is important to avoid disparaging that vast majority of states by saying those people don't count.  

This kind of hateful talk may result in some kind of psychological satisfaction, but it is no way to lead our country.

Yes. And this is why Karl Rove is the success that he is. Bending every rule in sight to benefit HIS party. Vote caging. Microtargeting. All legal .. sort of .. but then it gave us 8 years of W.

the key is that it is people who "self identify" as dems, not registered dems. and as someone else already stated, a large portion of democratic voters don't identify as dems even in closed primaries.

Obama in winning in open primaries, closed primaries and caucuses. (I know of know 'open caucuses'.)

Getting people to "try out" voting Dem, even once, is a smart move. Once they've voted for Obama the first time, they're more likely to do so again.

Face it, this is just another time that the Obama campaign has been nimble and creative while Hillary sits there, wondering why more people don't come flocking to her.

Something about "It's Ok if Republicans do it"? Got used a lot for a while there. Now most of the posters over there, and a few here, are trying to convince people that "It's Ok if Obama does it". If the Republicans can win our primary, how hard can it be for them to win the GE?

How do you identify a "REAL" Democrat?

Is it a REGISTERED Democrat? If so, then exit polls are useless since they ask for party self-identification and even in closed primaries, there a significant portion of REGISTERED Democrats that don't self-identify as a Democrat. What about states, like Wisconsin that don't require party identification?

Is it only people that self-identify as a Democrat? If so, how can you identify them before they vote? And do you really want to rely on exit polls to determine the election?

Is is only people that have been a Democrat for a certain period of time? In PA, we have a closed primary on April 22nd. To be able to participate, you have to be registered and have delared your party affiliation as a Democrat by March 24th. Is that long enough? Longer?

Is it only people who actively participate in the party? I thought one of the reasons people didn't like caucuses was that it took too much of one's time to participate.

Do we need to give them a test before they vote? Have them pay a poll tax?

You can see where this is headed, don't you? By the time we identify who is a "REAL" Democrat, there won't be anyone left.

Both candidates agreed not to campaign in Florida.

Both of them spoke against the DNC's decision and supported eventually seating the delegates.

Hillary has kept consistent.

Obama broke the non-campaigning agreement, then flip-flopped and is now opposing seating the delegates.

Don't you think it is pretty much wishful thinking that any Bushies are winding up in jail anyway?

In addition, do you really think that should be the focus of the next administration?

I for one am far more interested in moving forward and doing what we can to make sure these things never happen again than I am in looking back and spending time chasing convictions that are a.) unlikely to happen, b.) will be subject to countless appeals, and c.) likely to be pardoned the next time this country elects a Republican president (and as much as we don't want to admit it it will happen at some point in our lifetimes.)

He's a secret squirrel, looking for a nut!

Obama dogwhistle to the GOP: "Bush and Cheney have NOT committed impeachable offenses."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/ 2007-06-28-obama-impeachment_N.htm

Obama is the ONLY Dem candidate to make that declaration.

More Bush corruption will probably be exposed after Jan. 2009, but Obama wouldn't investigate the Bush administration because he'd be focused on "turning the page" and "bringing us all together."

I agree that this is a disturbing voter tactic, but just not convinced that this is voter fraud.

I think there are several issues with the Dem system for nominating a presidential candidate: from the primary, caucus, delegate, to the superdelegates. This is another to add to the concerns; however, I would not go as far chalk up Obama's wins solely to crossover voters or to call crossover voters engaging in fraudulent or illegal activities.

how YOU feel isn't the law.

now youre against google bombing?

"FRAUD: 1) deceit or trickery perpetuated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage."  --Webster's Dictionary

Seems pretty clear to me.  But then, what did we expect from someone whose Senate mentor was Joe Lieberman?  And the more I learn about Barak Obama, the more he sounds like Lieberman.  Lieberman, who calls himself a Democrat, votes like a Republican, endorsed John McCain, and says he wants bi-partisanship.  Barak O'Lieberman.

An Obama campaign site had the "Dem for a Day" thing up from spring of 2007 at least through Novemeber. An expensive video was also released in the spring.

The idea of Dems voting for Romney in MI would have hurt Hillary, who needed all her votes. Even though Obama and Edwards had taken their names off the ballot, no ballot would be counted for her unless her name was checked by the voter.

It's not like a regular winner take all election where someone runs unopposed and needs only a few votes to win.

He cannot alienate white women.  To win in November he needs Hillary's core.

Luckily there's a middle-term to come about: the convention. In the short run Obama's fakery is helping him collect 'empty delegates'. But in the middle term, at the convention (or before) the remaining Superdelegates will do their job, which is to look at where his delegates and his votes actually came from -- and correct for his 'gaming' by casting their votes for the more honest, viable candidate (ie Hillary).

Yeah...her camapaign needs the money to pay for all those donuts!

You're right. The GOP is funding his campaign. They're really his only supporters at this point. I've never met a Democrat who supports Obama. It's all Republicans, because they know he's weaker than Hillary, who has stood up well against rightwing attacks and emerged with high popularity.

The GOP is funnelling money to Obama secretly through Harvey the Bunny and the trilateral commission. They use the NAFTA super highway to do it.

Wouldn't superdelegates like a candidate who can attract voters from across the political spectrum?  Haven't a lot of them done the same in order to win elections?

Without republican cross-overs, Hillary would have won Missouri easily.  There was 6% Republican vote there.

Also, the overall pledged delegate count would be much closer.  Primaries like Virginia, Maryland and Wisconsin would have been much closer without this cross-over effort.

did you pay attention the last two weeks to what happened on the supreme court? do you think stevens and ginsburg are going to last for another 8 years? do you think 2 more justices in the mold of roberts/alito/scalia/thomas would be easier to get over than "obama's tactics"? get a fucking grip. if you are serious that it's "virtually impossible" to vote for him, then your head is so far in the sand as to call into question your ability to think rationally. two justices decided by mccain (or his vp) will have repercussions lasting for the next 50 years. oh.....but i forgot.......obama's tactics are just so.... so what? don't you see how mydd has just become a wingnut echo chamber? i don't even think most of the people starting these arguments are for real. they can't be. these must be redstaters playing with you (and me, for hear i am responding to these stupid fucking diaries!) it's so remarkably dishonest to say he should have run as a republican, that you just discredit any position you might hold. if you want a reasonable disagreement, demonstrate some reason. if you must, just repeat the mantra "supreme court" over and over until november. that might help.

no doubt! what the hell happened to this place? i used to come here for reliable judgement and opinion. now it's just a leftish counterpart to redstate.....all paranoia and frothing at the mouth. silly season, indeed..... it makes me sad.

and i'm sure that hundreds of you have as well. and i'm sure hundreds of you have sent emails to papers and editors and blogs all over the country. oh yeah, and i'm sure the clinton campaign has heard an earful.....jeez, i wonder why they're not saying anything??

maybe.......this is so. not. a. bomb.

it's just desperation and paranoia mongering, and the clinton camp knows that if they ever starting reciting this shit, it would look extremely desperate and paranoid.

but keep writing to dean, my guess is.......hmm......he won't respond. neither will anyone else.  just a guess.

This is what gives Obama supporters a bad name. I'd prefer not to be tarred with this stuff.

This is a repulsive post.

Honestly, MBNYC, that may be the most ghastly thing I've read on this site so far.

"I really cannot comprehend what has happened to this party, a party which I had endless pride for just months ago and now feel tainted just associating myself with."

Translation: My chosen candidate was winning just months ago and now I'm REALLY MAD that she's not!