I'd love it if traslations were provided for those of us who failed high school Spanish.

What a coincidence! I live in Texas and I got a mailer from the Obama campaign reminding me that I need to vote twice--but mine was in English!

After reading the Star-Telegram article and the only original source document on which it was based, I say calm down, folks. Nothing is going to interrupt or delay or Hillary is pissed about her staff's failure to understand that the Texas vote is a two-stage process that occurs at (1) the primary "election," then (2) the post-election "conventions" in each "precinct."

The original source document that triggered the newspaper coverage was a letter from the general counsel for the Democratic party in TX dated 2/28 (yesterday) that begged the campaigns not to pursue litigation challenging "the convention process." The original source document said NOTHING about "caucuses."

The Star-Telegram (S-T) made clear that it was using the word "caucuses" as shorthand for the "precinct conventions." The S-T's web posting and its headline are incorrect and sloppy and may be corrected by morning. It's not about "caucuses" according to the general counsel of the TX Democrats, it's about the "precinct conventions."

In TX, those "precinct conventions" in each local "precinct" are entirely different from the kinds of caucuses which occurred in Iowa and Nevada. The "conventions" are governed by the outcome of the actual "primary" votes in each precinct, and then by special rules which have been in place for over a year which Clinton didn't know about until this month some time.

Those special rules give extra weight (and extra delegates) to precincts which had extra heavy turnout for Democrats in the last one (or two or three, take your pick) election cycles. Which means, as Josh reported days and days ago, the precincts which are heavily Hispanic will NOT get extra weight or credit because those precincts had shitty turnout for Democrats in several previous election cycles. Because (this is my claim, don't blame Josh), many Hispanics in many precincts in TX fell in love with Shrub and AGAG (Alberto Gonzales, former Attorney General and previously counsel to the TX governor, Shrub) and those Hispanics VOTED FOR REPUBLICANS FOR SEVERAL ELECTION CYCLES SO THEY DON'T GET EXTRA CREDIT IN A DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, nor should they.

New Zogby poll has Obama up 7% in Texas and only down 2% in Ohio.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/29/11235/9885/717/466104

Why didn't you post that Eric? Did you find Hillary's snuke yet?

The Canadian Embassy has re-confirmed their denials about this story. It's looking like a redux of the New York Times hit job on McCain.

We quite often decry the Republicans' use of factually accurate statements to mislead. Perhaps the headline writer here has just come over from the dark side? I could offer an alternative: Hillary's campaign - cheating again? The article explains that the campaign isn't doing anything unethical, but the headline sure is catchy.

That video doesn't even compare to this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fd-MVU4vtU&eurl=http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/week9/index.html

VIVA OBAMA!!!

---- @lobary-------

I think your comment threads are compelling....

Lobary,Couple of thoughts and a question since you’re the resident TX voter today....(and to anyone else out there with an interest...)

Another thing I’ve noticed about Texas is that it’s an “open primary” and a Republican can vote on the Democratic ticket in the primary, and then turn around at vote GOP in the general. The allegation is they’d “stack the deck” to out a Democratic candidate --presumably knock Clinton out of the race (as a few voters claimed on CNN after the Potomac vote - “I voted Obama in the primary, and will vote Ron Paul in the general”)

Question, Lobary: Does this “open” aspect also apply to the Caucus format? Can the GOP show up at the Caucus, too? In the WA Caucus it was nearly impossible for such a baroque move. In WA a voter must affirm they are a Democrat and are a registered voter or commit perjury in the process. They sign and date their name, however, they don’t have to put a time stamp for signature. People can sign and leave, which accommodates individual schedules.

Second question: In the TX open primary system, are voters required to state their party affiliation regardless if they intend to vote for an opposing party? Therefore, the Sec of State Office can verify if GOP voted DEM, or vice versa. I would presume the individual would need to verify they are at least registered, but in TX would you need to be an “independent” in order to vote both ways -or can you stay party loyal and then vote anyway you wish? In WA, we are required to stick to the party we picked. For example, if the individual voter decides to be an “independent” but there is no candidate running as an independent, well, you don’t have a candidate -and you don’t get a vote. Equally, if you voted Democratic in the primary, you’re Democratic in the general. No switch hitting or swing dancing, so to speak.

thks.

Soft Felt Hat,

Yes, a Republican voter can do just that. The only requirement to participate in the caucus (precinct convention) is to have voted in the Democratic primary. Any voter can then sign his/her name, address, voter ID#, and presidential preference, and walk right out the door.

And no, we don't have to state our party affiliation. The only thing you have to do is request a Democratic or Republican primary ballot. I did just that in 2000. I knew our then-governor W had no business being president, so I voted for John McCain in the Republican primary to cast a preemptive vote against Bush.