I've just been seeing the words of so many really good-hearted Clinton supporters and I just wanted to express an idea that came to me when I read them.

I've been waiting for this day for a long time.  I've been calling from home and from phonebanks.  I first knocked on doors in Studio City, CA in June 2007 and I've been working for it since.  But now that we're here, I don't want to celebrate.  I've been waiting for this day for what seems like forever, but I'm not going to celebrate.  I will hold my celebration for November in deference to the Clinton supporters who have done so much for such an equally talented candidate.

There's more...

2nd Update: You must now be saying, but what happened to the first update. Well, it mysteriously disappeared. I just wanted to thank those that Rec'd me. Although, I'm not sure what it will mean for you. I also want to thank Student Guy for finding this comment from KTinTX the host of Burnt Orange Report disparaging any claim of candidate inspired fraud in the caucuses. It's time we had some honesty in this debate.3rd Update: Thanks for getting me up the Rec List again. Hope more people will question both myself and Alegre. I just don't respect someone that makes outrageous claims based on minimal evidence. Happy Last Primary Day!4th Update: Since I'm still up here. I think it is only appropriate that as we near the end of the primary, at least this diary if not all the diaries on the Rec List, should congratulate and acknowledge the hard work and great passion of Hillary Clinton and her supporters. I hope that we are all joyful in the result of the November election, since we have been so divided in the results of the primary election. Thank you for your intelligence and dedication.

Finally, here's (.pdf file) the evidence of which I've been asking Pacific John.  For months now, I've been asking Pacific John for some proof of his malicious allegations.  And now it has finally been delivered to me in a diary by Alegre. And so I read the document expecting to be persuaded by all the evidence of illegal activity, but it was not to be so.  I saw in two seconds that this document and the "incidents" that are reported have holes through which I can drive a Buick.  And it turns out that the only campaign that might have done something untoward is Clinton's (Check out the end for more info).

First, Alegre says that this "legitimate" claim of fraud comes from a "neutral" observer.  This same "neutral" observer has a on the homepage a huge banner stating "Count their votes now," with big pictures of Michigan and Florida.  Very neutral indeed.

Second, the document is pathetic.  There is no indication of who produced the document.  No labeling of its author or the organization for which it was produced.  The only thing aside from the "incidents" reported is the number A/72472998.2.  I googled and searched yahoo for that number and came up with nothing.  Alegre or Pacific John or another completely unidentified and unaccountable individual could have made this report.  But it is unlikely to be an official document of the Clinton campaign, the TDP or the Secretary of State, because if I've learned one thing since I've got involved in politics and interested in government it is that organizations like those stamp their name all over their documents.  So how are we supposed to believe that these events actually happened?

There's more...

(Burnt Orange Report has the scoop as they do with all things Texas).

I don't write too many diaries and I don't really record which superdelegate endorses whom.  It's just not a major concern of mine which specific figure is giving Obama a greater delegate lead, but the Chairman of the Texas Democratic Party is particularly important to me.  The reason being is that I was particularly disturbed by a diary written by Pacific John.  In that diary Pacific John accused Barack Obama's campaign of committing fraud on the entire state of Texas.  He provided no evidence (except for hearsay).  

After repeatedly seeking either evidence or a retraction, I decided to post my own diary which further elaborated my great anger at these false accusations and pointing out that the Pacific John's diary was unsubstantiated.  Pacific John and I have continued this disagreement and I even received an e-mail from Pacific John questioning why I continued to ask him for evidence.  To all my questions regarding where the evidence was located, Pacific John would respond that the Texas Democratic Party had all the evidence and the affidavits proving fraud by the Obama campaign.  So imagine my great joy and suprise when I went to DemConWatch and saw that both the Chairman of the TDP and his wife (who is also a superdelegate) has endorsed Obama.  I guess there wasn't evidence to prove fraud after all.

There's more...

John Edwards endorses Obama.  MSNBC confirmed it[editor's note, by nklein].  Discuss.

There's more...

First, why did I keep quiet? I followed the campaign's guidance to resolve these issues behind closed doors. There were a few elements of this: the campaign's first concern was make as many corrections to the delegate count as possible within TDP rules, in TDP offices. Once the deed was done, an orderly audit benefited our side, and pushing these charges in the press would have created a circus (a la Florida) that would have shut down the process of verifying sign in sheets and delegate calculations.

Second, why no reporting? Because the press did not seek to investigate this, even though the Clinton campaign published the linked press release that we had evidence of widespread illegalities. I called a reporter from the El Paso Times who did not return my call. Also, this did not get pushed in the press after the initial press release because the TX Hillary campaign chose to trust the process and grind out the delegate count. Since the TDP is run by people who support both campaigns, there would have been a serious lose of face to air these charges, and would have strained the professional relationships between all in the campaigns and in the party. In the specific case of El Paso, I am told Chair Danny Anchondo did not want to humiliate leading Obama-supporting Democrats who he will have to live with for years to come.

Third, how did a minority faction override the majority? In the end, they did not. We had the best field operation I have ever seen, and in most cases, had a few trained people in each precinct. I should add, our organization was so overwhelming, the Obama campaign abandoned their precinct captain program about a week before the election, placing their bets on an election-day blitz by out of state organizers. We were also transparent, and included people with ties to the Obama campaign in our caucus training program. We knew that an orderly process favored Hillary. We would not have known about Mrs. A's precinct if we did not have trained people in the room. So, we were able to over-turn problems like Mrs A's precinct after the fact. How did the Obama organizers seize the convention in the first place? By intimidation, by physically controlling the legal documents, and by ignoring the legal process that called for an election of officers. They took the convention package and never let go of it.

That is the update that PacificJohn provides to my questions about his/her diary specifically addressing the holes in his/her story.  I began this as a comment, but I could not contain my thoughts to appropriate comment-length, b/c I'm so outraged at the popularity of a diary so bereft of logic and evidence.

Massive fraud of the type that PacificJohn describes is something that you can't push under the rug.  There were live reports from caucuses all across Texas.  I understand PacificJohn may have been busy and missed those, but they were broadcasting. I'm sure print reporters were all over the state as well.  They all apparently missed this.  A document in this comment by alegre claims that over four thousand people called the Hillary Clinton's campaign, but nobody called the press.  

The update says a reporter from El Paso's newspaper blew PacificJohn off. No, duh, b/c there is no story there.  The evidence she/he provides in his/her diary is not proof of anything.  It's hearsay.  He/she tells us about a conversation he/she had with a person in another precinct.  There's no evidence of this.  I mean He/she doesn't even name the precinct.  How am I supposed to believe an anonymous blogger who won't give me any information to verify his/her claims?

Let's leave the press alone for a second.  Where are the police?  I know they were at caucuses (at least one).  B/c ProudMilitaryMom was kind enough to post a video of one.  If you watch the video you will notice them prominently near the convention chair in the center of what looks like a basketball court.  She posted this as proof of said illegal and/or unethical activity.  First, why didn't the police stop it?  Second, why has this video not become a rallying point for you to demonstrate your point.  I can't answer the first one, but I can answer the second.  B/c it doesn't show any illegal or unethical activity.  I'm sure this was not the only caucus with cops.  Why didn't they arrest, detain or otherwise prevent illegal activity that PacificJohn claims?  If these people were so coordinated and so violent and thug-like, why weren't there massive arrests around Texas?

Why has the TX AG not proceeded with criminal investigations?  (If they have please provide evidence).  PacificJohn said the TDP (with the Clinton campaign's acquiesance) is trying to sweep any alleged fraud under the rug in order to save face as long as the delegates are awarded fairly.  But I doubt that the Republican TX AG would be so accomadating.  Especially in an election year with a Senate seat that Dems are making a real run at.  You don't think that he/she would love to paint the Democrats as corrupt b/c one of the presidential candidates is conducting massive fraud?  Even if there's no case there we've seen the Republicans go after Democrats for less. Look what they did to Gov. Siegelman.  Why is he/she not investigating?  This is massive criminal fraud you're talking about.  A massive fraud can be conducted in a presidential nomination process and the AG doesn't hear about it.  Earlier, I cited a document posted by alegre with thousands of calls to the Clinton campaign.  PacificJohn wants you to believe that noone called the Secretary of State, the state Elections board, the Texas Rangers,  the local police or the TX AG.

No, I'm sorry I'm going to have to call bullshit on all of that.  It doesn't make ANY SENSE.  It's just not logical.  The world does not work that way.  Fraud in caucuses are open for the public to see.  It would be obvious to everbody and not possible to hush up with investigative powers of both Fourth Estate and the Republican officials of the state of Texas going after it.

Your entire diary is all conjecture.  There are no facts.  There are no numbers.  There are no locations.  No names given.  No way to verify anything that you say.  Merely the word of an anonymous blogger with hearsay evidence.  He/she could be Sean Hannity mascarading as a Democratic blogger trying to stir up shit for all I know (he/she's probably not).  Why doesn't he/she provide the basic facts, like what precinct he/she was talking about and in what precinct were he/she was working?  

The fact that this is being rec'd and that you are getting mojo is sad.  And I know I might get TR'd for saying that, but it's true.  There are no facts here.  There is no evidence.  And yet people praising this diary beyond belief as if it's exposing some deep, dark secret.  There were a couple of diaries up the other day about WVWV.  With the WVWV, many of the same people who are praising this diary were hammering that diary.  They were outraged that somebody would malign a progressive organization that has been working to register voters since 2003 with very little evidence.  That diary had press reports.  That diary had a press release from the NC AG.  That diary had an audio recording.

Just the other day there was a big story on Dailykos about Mickey Kantor supposedly maligning Indianans with expletives and racial epithets.  That diary had a video and a transcript.  It appears that the veracity of both those stories are in doubt know due to the good reporting of Ben Smith of Politico.  And yet PacificJohn's story with no press reports, no press release from either law enforcement or other official objective sources, no audio recording, no video recording, no transcript, is being praised by lions and lionesses of this blog.

That is pathetic.  That is the demonstration that all who swallowed that b.s. hook, line and sinker are only out to malign a progressive candidate who has done amazing things with volunteer recruitment, morale, bringing in new voters and fundraising.  Barack Obama has conducted a brilliant campaign and the reason he did so well in caucuses and red states is b/c he COMPETED for them.  Hillary had what has been the Dems' GE strategy for years.  Win the big states and win the close states.  Don't compete anywhere else or else you're wasting your money.  That hasn't worked in the thirty years of that ridiculouse strategy's use.  The only time it did work is b/c Perot was splitting what would be the majority needed to win the election.

And b/c Barack Obama competed for those states, b/c he cared about involving those Democratic citizens in the selection of the next Democratic nominee, PacificJohn and others assault him.  On that thread Obama and his supporters have been called criminals, thugs and other unsavory adjectives.  That this blog respects that and allows such baseless slanders against not just a candidate, but the individual volunteers in TX (including The Distillery if he/she was telling the truth) makes it a much different place than the one I joined.  Thus this is a call out.  I am calling out PacificJohn to provide the evidence or take down his/her diary.  I am calling on all the people who rec'd that piece of shit to apologize.  And I am calling on Jerome, Todd, Jonathan and other mods to ban that diary and take possible disciplinary action against PacificJohn if he does not provide the evidence.

I do not care if my trusted user status to hide people gets taken away from me for this.  I do not care if I get banned for this.  I do not care if Jerome comes over to my house and tries to kick my ass.  I will not stand idly by while a person with nothing to offer tries to malign myself and my fellow Obama supporters and my candidate with unsubstantiated rumors.  This is supposed to be a DEMOCRATIC blog.

There's more...

tomorrow.  Some may be suprised to see my name associated with a diary so entitled.  But I figured it would be good to get this out of the way early b/c I know it's coming and use it as a means to ask a question.

An excellent website, DemConWatch (which I cannot endorse enough; the reporting is beyond any other news source, including the AP) has developed a chart to track the selection of add-on superdelegates.  Some may not of heard of this term, b/c the media has constantly refered to the superdelegates, but rarely says how they are selected.  Add-on superdelegates are selected at state, county and district conventions or by the Executive Committee of the state party.  

As you will see if you check out the website, tomorrow the State Democratic Executive Committee will meet to decide on the identity of the 4 add-on delegates that New York is assigned.  Given that New York is her home state, I have no doubt that every one of those add-on superdelegates will immediately announce their support for Hillary.  On this blog and possibly in the media this will be a big story, b/c it will the largest one day total of superdelegates for Senator Clinton this year, even if she does not get any other superdelegates.  I would also point out though that if you notice the state immediately preceding New York and those immediately after New York were all won exceedingly handily by Senator Obama and will equal the number of add-on superdelegates from New York.  And those are only the add-ons to be chosen this weekend.  Prior to Illinois' selection of its 3 add-on superdelegates on Monday.

Thus it appears that in the add-on superdelegates (which total 64 unpledged) they will split down the middle or there will be a slight advantage given to Obama due to the fact that he has won more states.  After the add-ons are divied up, there are 227 superdelegates left.  Of the 227, Senators and Governors make up around 30, U.S. House Representatives are around 65 and the 139 left are elected or appointed party officials and former chairs of the party and former Speakers, Majority leaders and Presidents and VPs.  Today, Obama won 3 House members and Clinton won 2 party official superdelegates.  Moreover, we learned today that Sen. McCaskill (an Obama supporter) is "feeling good" about the U.S. House.  

Given the fact that Sen. Clinton needs at best estimates 69% of the superdelegates (both add-on and already identified) left to win the election, how does she do it?  For months now, we as a community have been arguing vehemently points large and small: Should Clinton drop out, should Obama drop out, racism, sexism, gas taxes, Wright, flip offs, and so on.  Yet in that time, I have yet to hear logical path that Clinton has to nomination.  We all agreed long ago that Obama's going to win among elected delegates.  So since then, we have been arguing whether it was right or wrong for the superdelegates to choose the presidential candidate and what methods they should use to choose.  Yet in that time Obama has gained a net of over a hundred superdelegates and Clinton has gained almost no superdelegates.  

So on the day before Sen. Clinton's biggest superdelegate total this year, let me ask: HOW DOES SHE WIN?  Don't tell me whether she should win or what her qualities are that will make her a better president, but please tell me how.  B/c if she cannot win and given the superdelegate ratio over the past several months I don't understand how she can, then what is the point of continuing the campaign?  Why should we continue this primary race which is damaging the ability of the party to unite behind either one of these presidential candidates if the outcome is already determined?  

Just a question.

There's more...

I'm not sure how many people on this blog actually know me, but those who do know that I've been a consistent and I think vocal Obama supporter.  As such I would like to give due credit to someone who the media was counting out and better finances were drowning and still won.

Since I'm an Obama supporter (hopefully you'll forgive me for this), I would like to point out that she does have the vocal support of the former Democratic President of the U.S. and the Governor of the state along with other countless political figures in Pennsylvania.  And if anything this race shows anything it is how important local, state and national political figures can be in advocating for their candidate.  I would also like (please forgive me again) to say that he did whittle down a substantial lead that she had less than a month ago.

But to the point of this diary.  This is a congratulations to her and you for all the hard work that you have put in supporting her and working for her election.  I have been here consistently and I've seen the work that alegre, NewHampster and others have put in on this blog and on calls and walking.  You two and others that due not immediately come to mind (but have done no or not much less) have done a lot in what I know is a labor of love for a truly esteemable candidate.

And your hard work has been matched by her hard work and that of her staff.  She's done some great things in both this campaign and in her life against some of the longest odds.  She has been good public servant long before her career as a public official began.  And in this campaign she has obviously won more votes than any other presidential primary candidate before 2008.

I hope that you guys enjoy this win...and then it's on to Guam, North Carolina, Indiana.

There's more...

(x-posted at Daily Kos)

The NY Times has an interesting article this evening regarding McCain's speech on the economy and the housing crisis.  McCain today described how he plans to destroy the U.S. economy through inaction, but I noticed something extremely disturbing on the second page of that the New York Times article.  I'm not a lawyer and I was hoping a lawyer, especially a corporate lawyer, could let me know if the following advice from John McCain constitutes advocating for a monopoly.

The second page of that Times article begins:

In place of large-scale government assistance, Mr. McCain recommended two immediate but limited measures. He said that accountants should meet to review the system by which real estate and related assets are valued, and he urged mortgage lenders to step forward voluntarily to help credit-worthy borrowers who may be strapped for cash at the moment.

"They have been asking the government to help them out," he said. "I'm now calling upon them to help their customers and their nation out."

The description of the New York Times is extremely surprising.  This is the first time I've ever heard someone with the stature of a presidential candidate call for what appears like blatant collusion.  But McCain's actual words are even more surprising:

from the second page

In financial institutions, there is no substitute for adequate capital to serve as a buffer against losses. Our financial market approach should include encouraging increased capital in financial institutions by removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments to raising capital.

I am prepared to examine new proposals and evaluate them based on these principals. But I think we need to do two things right away. First, it is time to convene a meeting of the nation's accounting professionals to discuss the current mark to market accounting systems. We are witnessing an unprecedented situation as banks and investors try to determine the appropriate value of the assets they are holding and there is widespread concern that this approach is exacerbating the credit crunch.

We should also convene a meeting of the nation's top mortgage lenders. Working together, they should pledge to provide maximum support and help to their cash-strapped, but credit worthy customers. They should pledge to do everything possible to keep families in their homes and businesses growing. Recall that immediately after September 11, 2001 General Motors stepped in to provide 0 percent financing as part of keeping the economy growing. We need a similar response by the mortgage lenders. They've been asking the government to help them out. I'm now calling upon them to help their customers, and their nation out. It's time to help American families.

I'm sorry I thought an industry-wide plan to improve the entire industry was the definition of the monopoly.  I've tried to find the relevant law from FindLaw, but have found no answer to that question.  It seems like a dangerous proposition to call for some kind of collective action from the mortgage lenders.  To me, it seems foolish policy-wise and and as I said legally questionable.

Policy-wise, it seems foolish to give two industries that in the past decade have had major ethical issues.  In each industry, companies have collapsed due to major violations of the law and complete mismanagement of their investors' assets.  So the solution to this major crisis due to greedy and unethical behavior of investment banks is to allow them to collude to make more money off the backs of homeowners?  I don't think so.

What concerns me more though is that McCain is so clueless about economic policy that he may be advocating for illegal actions.  Am I way off base or is McCain actually calling for a monopoly in the banking industry?

There's more...

On Saturday Cyn NY wrote this diary claiming that Obama has stolen this election.

Sunday, Alegre wrote a diary decrying Obama's "Chicago smack-down politics" in reference to the failure of the MI & FL to agree on revotes.

Look if this election was so unfair, then why did she agree to the rules in the first place?  I mean who had more power in the Democratic Party than Senator (Former First Lady) Hillary Clinton.  

She is losing (not lost, although there is a very small chance for her to pull it out), b/c she made poor strategic decisions.  If you don't believe me, then follow me over the flip...

There's more...

Hoyt Hilsman, an author and activist, is challenging a member of the Republican House leadership: David Dreier.  Dreier was the man who for years provided the Republican House the tools to override the concerns of the American people and often times a majority in the House of Representatives on issues such as, Iraq, Medicare Part D and the subsidies for the Oil Industry.  Hoyt is the only person who will have the resources and the message that can defeat Dreier.

Just check out this article by CQPolitics and reprinted in the New York Times:

California's 26th District. Democrat Hoyt Hilsman loaned his campaign $100,000 in his quest to topple 14-term Republican Rep. David Dreier. Hilsman, director of a nonprofit organization promoting equality of opportunity and economic growth, raised an additional $60,000 and had $150,000 on hand as of June 30.

There's more...