Why Texas is Obama Territory
It's not the momentum. Due to the Lone Star state's quirky primary system, Barack Obama can lose the popular vote but still win more delegates than Hillary Clinton.
On Tuesday, the state will award 193 delegates, 126 of them through a primary and 67 by way of a caucus that begins minutes after the polls close.
The delegates are distributed among the state's 31 state Senate districts, but not according to size or population. Instead, they are divvied up based on the Democratic turnout in each district in the last two statewide elections. Designed to reward voter participation, the system awards a larger number of delegates (as many as eight) to districts that saw large Democratic turnouts in 2004 and 2006, and fewer (two or three, in some cases) to those that didn't.
This system does not work to Clinton's advantage, because the delegate-rich districts largely favor Obama while the delegate-poor ones trend toward Clinton. In the 2004 presidential election, half of the state's Latinos voted for George W. Bush, their former governor, who had a longstanding relationship with the Latino community in Texas. In 2006, when Republican Governor Rick Perry ran for reelection, the Latino vote splintered among Perry, then-Democratic Congressman Chris Bell, and two independents. According to Republican pollster Mike Baselice, Perry took 36 percent of the Latino vote, while Bell took just 35 percent. Had Latinos voted in large numbers for John Kerry (in 2004) and Bell (in 2006), delegate counts in Latino-heavy districts that are anticipated to support Clinton on Tuesday would be higher.
Compounding the problem for the Clinton campaign is that Bell, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee in 2006, was at the time the Congressional Representative from Houston. As a result, the city turned out a large number of Democrats for that election, meaning that state Senate District 13, which contains Houston, gets seven delegates this time around. The city is home to one of the state's largest black communities and one of only two African-American senators in the statehouse. That state senator, Rodney Ellis, has endorsed Obama and delegate-rich Houston is expected to turn out strongly for the Illinois senator.
Other delegate-rich areas include Austin and Dallas. State Senate district 14, which includes the liberal college town of Austin, has eight delegates. Students and well-educated adults make up Obama's core constituencies, so the city represents fertile ground for him.
Dallas, on the other hand, is less of a sure thing. The Clinton-friendly Latino community there is larger than the Obama-friendly black community. But African-American State Senator Royce West is from Dallas, and he has endorsed Obama.
Meanwhile, the Latino-heavy districts 19, 20, 21, and 27, collectively covering a huge swath of the southwestern part of the state along the Mexico border, each have four or fewer delegates. According to Austin-based political consultant Leland Beatty, Latinos have traditionally made up 75 percent of the electorate in Democratic primaries in these districts. But despite Clinton's anticipated success in these parts, she will have to outperform even the most optimistic expectations for any of the districts to distribute their delegates three-to-one instead of two-to-two. (For more on the Texas delegate breakdown, see the excellent work of Texas-based blog Burnt Orange Report.)
The bottom line: The Latino-heavy parts of Texas that will likely favor Clinton are comprised of districts with few delegates, often between two and four, while many of the areas Obama is targeting are districts with five to eight delegates. On Tuesday night, if trends established in earlier primaries hold and Obama draws support from college students, well-educated voters, and black voters, while Clinton pockets low-income whites and Latinos, Obama could walk away with a delegate lead regardless of the popular vote.
And then there is the caucus at the end of the night. Working-class voters that have (at least until recently) been one of Clinton's blocs may not have the time to vote during the day and return in the evening to caucus. Critics of the caucus system have traditionally pointed to the fact that it favors the wealthy: voters who are politically sophisticated and able to bend their schedules to participate in a time-consuming event. In Texas, caucus attendees must have voted in the primary. So caucuses there are decided by voters who can find time to do both. (The problem is mitigated somewhat because Texas allows voters to cast their ballots early—since February 19 in this case. Early voting is pointing to a record turnout.)
To date, Obama has done exceedingly well in caucuses for a number of reasons: his supporters are more upscale than Clinton's; they are often more energized than hers; and the Clinton campaign has neglected to invest heavily in caucus states. All told, it's likely that Obama will net a substantial majority of the 67 delegates awarded through the caucus on Tuesday night.
In Texas, both the primary and the caucus are open to independents and Republicans, which also gives Obama the edge, since those voters have tended to favor him over Clinton. Mix together Obama's potential with independent and Republican voters, the quirky distribution of delegates, and the post-voting caucus, and you've got a situation in Texas that's working to Obama's advantage—and looking more and more like Clinton's Alamo.
Photo of Obama by flickr user Matt Wright used under a Creative Commons license.
Page 1 of 1 
While Hillary Clinton battles Barack Obama on the campaign trail, a judge in Los Angeles is quietly preparing to set a trial date in a $17 million fraud suit that aims to expose an alleged culture of widespread corruption by the Clintons and the Democratic Party.
At the conclusion of a hearing tomorrow morning before California Superior Court Judge Aurelio N. Munoz, lawyers for Hollywood mogul Peter F. Paul will begin seeking sworn testimony from all three Clintons – Bill, Hillary and Chelsea – along with top Democratic Party leaders and A-list celebrities, including Barbra Streisand, John Travolta, Brad Pitt and Cher.
Paul's team hopes for a trial in October. The Clintons' longtime lawyer David Kendall, who will attend the hearing, has declined comment on the suit.
The Clintons have tried to dismiss the case, but the California Supreme Court, in 2004, upheld a lower-court decision to deny the motion.
(Story continues below)
Bill Clinton, according to the complaint, promised to promote Paul's Internet entertainment company, Stan Lee Media, in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife's 2000 Senate campaign. Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to produce, pay for and then join them in lying about footing the bill for a Hollywood gala and fundraiser.
The Clintons' legal counsel has denied the former president made any deal with Paul. But Paul attorney Colette Wilson told WND there are witnesses who say it was common knowledge at Stan Lee Media that Bill Clinton was preparing to be a rainmaker for the company after he left office.
Paul claims former Vice President Al Gore, former Democratic Party chairman Ed Rendell and Clinton presidential campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe also are among the people who can confirm Paul engaged in the deal.
Hillary Clinton with Peter and Andrea Paul (Courtesy Hillcap.org)
Paul claims Rendell directed various illegal contributions to the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign and failed to report to the Federal Election Commission more than $100,000 given for a Hollywood event for Gore's campaign and the Democratic National Committee in 2000. McAuliffe, Paul says, counseled him in two separate meetings to become a major donor to Hillary Clinton to pave the way to hire her husband. Paul asserts top Clinton adviser Harold Ickes also directed him to give money to the Senate campaign but hid that fact in "perjured testimony" during the trial of campaign finance director David Rosen.
Rosen was acquitted in 2005 for filing false campaign reports that later were charged by the FEC to treasurer Andrew Grossman, who accepted responsibility in a conciliation agreement that fined the campaign 35,000. Paul points out the Rosen trial established his contention that he personally gave more than $1.2 million to Clinton's campaign and that his contributions intentionally were hidden from the public and the Federal Election Commission.
Rosen, accused of concealing Paul's in-kind contribution of more than $1 million, was acquitted, but Paul contends the Clinton staffer was a scapegoat. Paul points out chief Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson told the Washington Post he was aware of the donation, yet he never was called as a witness in the Rosen trial.
Paul contends his case will expose "the institutional culture of corruption embraced by the Clinton leadership of the Democratic Party," which seeks to attain "unaccountable power for the Clintons at the expense of the rule of law and respect for the constitutional processes of government."
The complaint asserts Clinton has filed four false reports to the FEC of Paul's donations in an attempt to distance herself from him after a Washington Post story days after the August 2000 fundraiser reported his past felony convictions. Clinton then returned a check for $2,000, insisting it was the only money she had taken from Paul. But one month later, she demanded another $100,000, to be hidden in a state committee using untraceable securities.
"Why wouldn't that cause someone to inquire?" Paul asked. "Especially since it was days after she said she wouldn't take any more money from me."
Paul has the support of a new grass-roots political action group that is helping garner the assistance of one of the nation's top lawyers
Republican activist Rod Martin says his group plans to highlight Paul's case as it launches an organization based on the business model of the left-wing MoveOn.org but rooted in the principles and political philosophy of former President Reagan.
Martin's group also is assisting in Paul's complaint to the FEC asserting that unless the agency sets aside the conciliation agreement and rescinds immunity granted the senator, it will "have aided and abetted in the commission" of a felony.
Paul's case is the subject of a video documentary largely comprised of intimate "home movies" of Hillary Clinton and her Hollywood supporters captured by Paul during the period.
Expect Barack Obama and Illinois Governor Blagojevich to be indicted on at least 2 counts within 2 weeks. Word is that both men are currently being investigated by a federal grand jury in Chicago.
The Tony Rezko federal corruption trial starts tomorrow (March 3, 2008) in Chicago. Expect a ton of fallout. Rezko is a small fish. The big fish are the politicians in Illinois. The Rezko trial will reveal a cesspool of corruption and fraud in Illinois politics. It will be the downfall of many Illinois polititicians, including the Governor and Barack Obama, and many, many others.
Monday, March 3, 2008
DAY 1 of the Rezko Trial
Obama is in deep with Rezko. his longtime relationship with Rezko will be exposed, as will the many deals they did together. People in Chicago know the truth about Obama and Rezko. The fallout from the Rezko trial will be really bad for Obama.
the Dallas News writes that Clinton is planning to disrupt voting at the TX caucuses:
QUOTE: Hillary Clinton and her campaign is pushing for precinct captains for Texas' 8,000 Democratic polling places. They need to train folks to lead the caucus sessions that will determine more than 60 delegates after the primary voting is over.
In training materials being handed out by the Clinton campaign, it is clear that they want to control those caucus sessions.
The materials say in part, "DO NOT allow the supporter of another candidate to serve in leadership roles."
It goes on to say, "If our supporters are outnumbered, ask the Temporary Chair if one of our supporters can serve as the Secretary, in the interest of fairness.
"The control of the sign-in sheets and the announcement of the delegates allotted to each candidate are the critical functions of the Chair and Secretary. This is why it is so important that Hillary supporters hold these positions." (END QUOTE)
Source: http://trailblazers.beloblog.com/archives/2008/03/caucus-strategy.html
This is a BLATANT VIOLATION of the caucus rules, where the permanent chair and secretary should be elected by majority voting. This invites to vote fraud. See: http://www.txdemocrats.org/index.php/282 for the caucus ruels. An example of the caucus minutes is attached, where the majority voting is clearly stated.
"Hillary Clinton's plan to use Texas as a firewall against Barack Obama's momentum may be the biggest mistake of her campaign. "
No it won't. If she loses she will not take responsibility for it. She will scapegoat "Big Media" or cry about the undemocratic nature of delegate distribution in Texas. There will be something. There always is with those Clinton people. She feels its her birthright. And despite the fact that half the country hates her, many women will support "the first women" president even if she pulls out a gun and shoots Obama right in front of them. After finishing 3rd in Iowa, almost losing to uncommitted in Michigan, and then losing 11 in a row any normal candidate would be finished. But women are keeping her in the race. Identity voters mock the democratic process.
I disagree. His stance on Immigration (issuing illegals liscences and providing them with medicare) along with his soft stance on drugs and crime plus his staunch anti-gun agenda have made him a pretty sore subject here in Texas.
BECAUSE TEXAS LIKES OBAMA, I TELL YOU WHY, THERE ARE MORE [deleted]S HERE IN TEXAS...THAT IS YOUR ANSWER.BUBBA
[deleted]ING [deleted] IS HAT HE IS...NOT A PRESIDENT OF THE U S A
Obama continues to be athreat to national maturity.
A few months he recieved international condemnation for stating if he were prez he would bomb the hostile tribes in Pakistan.For those who dont know (perhaps Obama) Pakistan is a Nuclear armed allie.
Obama is about to hand McCain the white house. Vote Hillary Vote to win think.
AMATURE POLITICAL ROOKIE OBAMA CONTINUES HIS CRUSADE TO HAND THE NEO CONS THE WHITE HOUSE.
HE HAS A BIG PIE HOLE AND LITTLE EXPERIENCE.
WE ALL KNOW IT WILL TAKE A HEAVY WEIGHT LIKE HILLARY TO TAKE BACK OUR DEAR WHITE HOUSE.
VOTE TO WIN THINK!
That photo of Obama shows that he really is all hat and no cattle :)
When Obama becomes president he will expose the corruption and lies the Bush administration spread with the Republican Party's aid for the alst 8 years and bring to account the thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's murdered at their hands.
Do you nutjobs know how to spell? Guess that is a good reason to vote Obama, increase in education so you may learn.
I am ALWAYS amazed at the countless downright evil and shady doings of the Clintons and even more amazed that nothing seems to touch this morally reprehensible couple. Everyone, no matter who they are in this country, need to pay for breaking the law.
I do NOT want to see this Dirty Duo in the WH - ever. They are corrupt and take, take, take, from the duped and beguiled citizens. And will do it again and again if allowed to go free.
In the past, every time the Clintons have done something wrong, the voters have forgiven them and continued to support them. This has only conditioned them to believe they can break the rules with impunity (you will NEVER see that 2006 tax return). Forgiveness and support was the rule until South Carolina. Even now, voter responsibility wears thin and and The Clinton campaign points to Obama and Rezko. You could plant a garden in the dirt that has accumulated between Bill and Hillary, but they are actually out there trying to call out someone else's behavior! And their supporters think it's wonderful. The last thing Bill and Hillary should want introduced into this race, is an examination of ethics and morality.
My canidate looks better in a cowbow/mexican hat.! Go Obama!
Obama looks natural in a cowboy hat. (More so then the turban anyway.)
Texas is an odd place. The two least successful (and least popular) wars in American history, Iraq and Vietnam were commenced by Presidents from Texas. Both those Presidents were unelected. (LBJ through the death of JFK and Bush-W through appointment of the ‘Royal Court of Supreme Republicans’.
Texas is home to a large contingent of Military-Industrialists and many of the oil giants. Both have gotten FAT over the past 7 years.
Texas is the only state which holds the legal right to succeed from the United States and is the only state which actually did steal land from Mexicans, albeit while they were citizens of Texas (not Mexico).
On a personal level, the Black Texans are typically the nicest community for me to deal with, (being a white Jew-boy from New York). The large military (enlisted) contingent also (often) holds a resentment against Hebrews, because few American Jews are enlisted in the U.S. military.
Texas also executes more convicts then all other states combined.
So it should come as no surprise that their primary system is also a screw-job. If it works out to Obama’s favor, I say: Poetic justice.
I realize there are a lot of very nice people in Texas and their women are both pretty and plentiful. But (IMHO) they should be banned from producing any more Presidents, ever.
I am voting for Hillary Clinton for the following reasons:
She is smart, capable and proven. She will be a steady and courageous leader. She has the political experience to make change in Washington. She has proven her ability to reach consensus with republicans. She has faced public and personal defeats in her life and has proven herself resilient and responsive to those trials. I know she is ready to be the president of the United States of America.
I believe Barack Obama's supporters vote for him for the following reasons:
He inspires certain feelings in them that invoke such admirable emotions as hope, faith, enthusiasm, etc. They want to believe that those feelings will transfer into reality.
I am a realist and a scientist. I need proof. Hillary Clinton has proven herself a strong leader. Barack Obama has not.
I think that Mr. Obama's "handlers" pushed him (willingly) into a campaign for a job for which he is not prepared. I can imagine the long meetings about his readiness and experience. I can imagine them telling him ... "if you wait 4 or 8 years you will have 100's of Senate votes you have to defend ... some of them controversial." "Now you are an empty slate and there is nothing much to criticize". "Now is the time".
This is not the person I want leading our country. An untried, unproven entity who has an easy time criticizing a vote that Hillary Clinton and 28 of the 49 democratic Senators made in 2002. A vote he cannot be criticized on because he was not and has not been put in a position where he had to make a critical vote.
After one of the recent debates, one of the female news commentators said in a disparaging way, “she just comes off as the smart girl in the class”. God forbid we elect a “smart girl” to lead this country. It’s much better to go with the popular boy following the ignorant boy who sits in the White House now. Popular boys usually get the smart girls to do their work for them anyway. Please, let the smart girl in the room - lead.
Come on Tuesday’s voters, give us the right person.
Get a life Martha. Or better yet. Get a job!
i am reading the news this evening, and wondering why anyone would want to be president.
There is saber rattling in Europe and South America, another lethal dust up between Israel and the Palestininians. Kosovo's independence has folks taking sides. The usual in Iraq and Afganistan.
The economy is in deep doo-doo. The news media manipulates public opinion for nefarious purposes.
We have only a limited understanding of the havoc wreaked by thee successive slime-ball administrations. Yes, I mean Bush, Clinton, Bush.
Who ever is elected now, will have it all unravel on their heads.
"A few months he recieved international condemnation for stating if he were prez he would bomb the hostile tribes in Pakistan.For those who dont know (perhaps Obama) Pakistan is a Nuclear armed allie."
Obama said if he had actionable intelligence about terrorist targets in Pakistan he would act, not that he would just bomb them. Apparently you do not realize that we have already done this. A few weeks ago, the us acted on intelligence to take out an al-qaeda leader in pakistan without pakistan's permission. It was considered a large success, and is exactly what obama said we should do last year.
Once again the anti obama message is based on misinformation and distortion
For all of you who continue to question Obama's experience and capability in leading check out this website on his voting record and bills he has sponsored - just the facts- you may be surprised www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633
The Republican's New Agenda is to Stop Obama, they want to run against Hillary. They have so much dirt in their Arsenal on the Clintons just waiting to be Unleashed (movies, scandals, lawsuits, books) -- that is why Rush Limbaugh is Begging, Begging his listeners to vote for Hillary. Limbaugh declared: “I want the funeral music to play at some point to the Clintons, but not this early.” America, if Hillary becomes the nominee, we haven't seen nothing yet!
Who released the Canadian Memo and distorted its contents--, where did that come from and who called Goolsbee to a meeting and conveniently set him up? Who pushed up Rezko's trial which, was to start much later this year? Why did the Somali picture come out, along with Farrakahn endoresement and a radio jock mocking of Obama's middle name? Which was allowed to be played over and over again by the Main-stream media. We have to ask these things? Who wants to Kill unity and hope? Was this part of the Kitchen Sink or may be the Basement (Swiftboating)? I do know its dirty politics and until we reject this kind of politicking in America we will be a pawn in their hands, the people of power, and never find our true Independence and Voice which Obama is offering. The Evil Ones are just getting started, warmed up. Someone is trying to pull our strings. The Truth will come out, however. Hopefully, America we can see through this Rouse this time and elect CHANGE!
You don't know what you are talking about.
Marian, clearly you have not been paying too much attention. Barack Obama has a full lifetime of experience ("proof," as you call it) solving real life problems, making successful compromises with those who oppose him, and dealing with personal and professional obstacles, the kind which Hillary Clinton can only imagine in her worst nightmares! I would expect a scientist to examine ALL of the available evidence, not just that provided by one side of the argument. Hillary has "handlers" too, and you appear to have forgotten that they are not unbiased.
Good luck with that "science" stuff.
Obama won Texas on Technincality. Delegates! If its about
So the media shud rewite who won.
Yes!Obama won Texas by Delegate lead of about 98 to 94 for HILAR
I arrived to vote at around 1830 after commuting home from work in Richardson. (I live in Bedford, work in Richardson; roughly thirty miles with a lot of traffic in between.) After casting my ballot I had to wait around for over an hour for the caucus to begin. It was an unorganized mess. It was 2230 before I was out of there and on my way home.
One person, one vote--that's the way it should be. Eighty-six the caucus bs.
