I know this information is jarring, and puts DNC delegates in an
uncomfortable situation, but if the time comes for delegates to
endorse or get behind a consensus candidate, this information should
be available. As I wrote to Rep. Capps, I apologize for not
illuminating this earlier.
My observations in Texas were that caucuses were broadly illegitimate.
In a few well-run counties, Hillary's caucus vote was the same or
better than the popular vote, but in chaotic counties, she fell behind
by double digits. While Texas is the only state to have both a binding
popular vote and a caucus vote, we saw similar results in Wa****ngton
State, where Obama's numbers plunged in the unofficial primary
compared to the caucuses .
This stands out: only four major Texas counties were orderly enough to
re****t most of their caucus results election night, and in three of
these, caucus preference mirrored the popular vote (HRC popular/
caucus): El Paso (69/75), Austin/Travis (37/34), San Antonio/Bexar
(56/57). In the case of Austin, I have read re****ts that that both
sides ran their caucuses well.
These counties had exceptional organizations, but it should not take
heroics to run a fair election.
On election night in El Paso, it became obvious that the Obama field
campaign was designed to steal caucuses. Prior to that, it was
impossible for me to imagine the level of attempted fraud and
disruption we would see. It was far worse than any GOP campaign I have
organized against on the Central Coast, worse than Tom Bordonaro's,
worse than Andrea Seastrand's, worse than the Dole campaign whose
sup****ters vandalized our headquarters.
We saw stolen precincts where Obama organizers fabricated counts, made
false entries on sign-in sheets, suppressed delegate counts, and
suppressed caucus voters. We saw patterns such as missing electronic
access code sheets and precinct packets taken before the legal time,
like elsewhere in the state. Obama volunteers illegally took
convention materials state-wide, with attempts as early as 6:30 am.
Some of this was presented in a press release from Clinton Campaign
Counsel Lyn Utrecht, but I witnessed worse than what she disclosed.
In one example of fraud that I witnessed, one of my precinct captains,
an elderly Hispanic woman, called me to re****t that BHO sup****ters had
illegally seized control of the convention. During our series of phone
calls, Mrs. "A." re****ted that the Obama people took the convention
materials and did not have a legal election of officers. Like nearly
all of El Paso, BHO people would have lost such an election in this
majority-Hillary, Hispanic, mostly elderly precinct convention.
The Obama people ordered Mrs. A. to sit across the room during the
delegate calculation, and excluded Hillary sup****ters from the
process. Mrs. A. overheard an Obama sup****ter call in a false delegate
count to Austin. In a 13 delegate precinct where Obama should have won
approximately 4 delegates, the Obama sup****ters attempted to award 19
delegates to Obama. This was not innocent. During my attempts at cell
phone diplomacy, the Obama "chair" hung up on me, and refused to talk
to the ethical Obama organizer I was paired with at another precinct
convention. As with all major attempts at fraud that we identified,
this delegate count was rectified in private at the county TDP
headquarters, according to TDP rules, but there were no public charges
or sanctions. It is my opinion that people should be in jail, but
there is not a mechanism for this sort of prosecution, certainly not
within TDP rules.
Although I have only volunteered in one state, virtually every Clinton
staffer I have talked to has similar stories from other caucus states.
While the Hillary field campaign operates and feels very much like
typical Democratic campaigns, the Obama campaign is something new to
Democratic politics. From my perspective, it looks like it has copied
the worst attributes of Republican campaigns, but with unprecedented
zeal.
Ironically, only in very well-organized areas like El Paso were we
able to even identify the scale of the attempted irregularities. In
these areas, we were also able to rebuff most attempts at fraud,
correct fraudulent delegate counts, and protect our voters. In less
well-organized areas, we did not have enough eyes and ears to identify
or stop fraud, and our numbers plunged.
Although affidavits have not been made public, I have copies and
records of the voter complaints for which I did interviews. Although
the Hillary campaign has not gone public with evidence of fraud, the
national legal team has approximately 200 such affidavits and 2000
voter complaints. The campaign intends to win the popular vote without
airing these charges in public, but I suspect the campaign will
provide authorities with this evidence upon request.
My own sense is that this information should not be withheld from
delegates, since it both casts the Obama campaign as stunningly
unethical, and it severely undermines the general credibility of
caucuses. It also points out that perception and reality are upside
down. The campaign that will "do anything to win," including the
illegal acts do***ented in affidavits, is not Hillary's.
In fact, I was as proud of the integrity and transparency of the
Hillary campaign in Texas as I was of the Capps and Clinton/Gore
campaigns of the 1990s.
I would be happy to share records in my position with appropriate
authorities.
It is true that elements of the Obama campaign appeal to our better
angels, but, in the moment of truth when the Obama campaign echoed
Republican Tom Bordonaro's, I made the personal decision that Sen.
Obama cannot be our nominee.
I am positive that any Democrat who witnessed what I did would stand
against Sen. Obama now, and I have faith that some endorsements like
Rep. Capps's are tem****ary. This is wrenching for a Democratic
activist like me who has served on county and Assembly District
committees, but I cannot sup****t a candidate with a criminal campaign.
Here at MyDD, I'll try to make time to answer factual questions
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 pu****ng 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 re****ting? 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 re****ter 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
sup****t both campaigns, there would have been a serious lose of face
to air these charges, and would have strained the professional
relation****ps 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-sup****ting 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 do***ents, and by
ignoring the legal process that called for an election of officers.
They took the convention package and never let go of it.
from:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/2/22818/72392
|
