Obama General Counsel Crashes Clinton Press Call On Voting Irregularities In Texas

Before I get to the primary results tonight, I’m playing catch up on some of the news of primary day.

Following up on Stuart’s post earlier today that the Obama campaign was reprimanded for “dirty tricks” in Ohio today, 2008Central.net reported earlier that “the Clinton Campaign held an urgent press call to discuss reported incidents of voting irregularities and intimidation taking place at primary conventions (caucuses) across the state of Texas.” Hmmm… more dirty tricks from the “hope” campaign:

Bob Bauer, Obama Campaign’s General Counsel, was on the call and engaged Clinton’s staff (much to their surprise).

The exchange between Bauer and the Clinton staff became heated.

Some of the specific reports of irregularities/intimidation (per Clinton campaign):

  • Precincts 18 and 24: Obama campaign took precincts chair’s materials.
  • Precincts 75, 851, 2052 in Harris County: Obama supporters have taken control of precinct convention (caucus), they reportedly refused to allow any Clinton supporters in, but were allowing Obama supporters in.
  • The Clinton campaign said tonight that Obama precinct workers illegally obtained caucus packets in the following Texas caucus precincts:
    • Precinct 2316 in Tarrant County
    • Precinct 1205 in Dallas County
    • Precinct 3127 in Bexar County
    • Precinct 3082 in Ft. Bend County
    • Precinct 18/224 in Harris County (Houston)
    • Precinct 3221 Dallas county
    • Precinct 87 in El Paso County
    • Precinct 458 in Travis County

The Clinton Campaign has released a memo that provides a bit more detail for their allegations.

You can listen to the entire conference call here.

Mark Ambinder notes, ” basically, whoever “gets the packet” controls the caucus.”

Technically, before the caucus begins at 7:15 CT, the packet is controlled by the precinct judge. But in reality, it might just be laying on a table somewhere. The Clinton campaign claims to have evidence that Obama supporters have, in eight instances, obtained in far in advance, which violates the rules set out by the state party.

There’s nothing the state party can or will do. They’re overwhelmed at the moment.

And from Politico:

After Bauer dropped off the call, Wolfson spelled out the lawyer’s name for a reporter and gave a nod to his “vigorous defense of the indefensible.”

“He didn’t deny anything,” added Clinton lawyer Lyn Utrecht.

Wolfson also saw an opening: “We look forward to asking our own questions” in future Obama conference calls, he said.

Bookmark and Share

Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Obama General Counsel Crashes Clinton Press Call On Voting Irregularities In Texas

  1. Pingback: Barack Obama Chronicles » Archive » Obama General Counsel Crashes Clinton Press Call On Voting Irregularities In Texas

  2. You’d think someone with a mic would have challenged the propriety of crashing a candidate conference call.

  3. Pingback: The Democratic Daily

  4. jerrydtx says:

    I live in Texas. The voting irregularity I witnessed was people being signed up as Obama voters at the caucus without anyone checking that they had actually voted during the day.

    There are many other horror stories: out of state voters voting in the precincts, sheets of names being passed out of people not at the caucuses

    I am saddened to see that Democrats would cheat each other to win an election. Senator Obama knows that his campaign is being extremely aggressive at these caucauses. Yet he is turning a blind eye to the cheating and lack of ethics. If this doesn’t smack of a lack of ethics I’m don’t know what does? What kind of President will he make? 🙁 Please vote for Senator Clinton. The proof is in the pudding and right now the pudding is shark infested.

  5. Lee Church says:

    the ad for menforhillary.org you have on this web site is personally offensive.

    1) you can’t argue that gender should not determine whom is elected and argue that a woman should be elected at the same time. If one argues that gender doesn’t matter, then don’t say it does.

    2) the accusation that the reader of the ad is sexist (“ditch your sexism now”) is offensive, especially considering that the following line says “elect a qualified woman now”. They could say “elect a qualified person now”.. sure.. but by using “woman” it’s sexist. Certainly we would not accept such hate speech if “man” were substituted for “woman”. I find it ironic that a sexist ad calls me a sexist. In addition by attempting to claim being a woman iis nherently superior, the notion of “equality” is undermined. You can’t argue you are “superior” and “equal” at the same time. The ad does women’s rights a huge disservice as a secondary result.

    3) The implication is that Hillary is qualified. Given the number of years she has been in elected office is less than either McCain or Obama, it’s a claim that is tough to support. Indeed the claim is not supported.

    Racist and sexist ads should not be accepted by this, or any other media, whether from the candidates themselves, their supporters, or any third party.

    By accepting revenue from these ads, and thus making money from sexist activities this site itself becomes a party to it.

    I sugget you think about what you do and how you conduct yourselves. You are known by the company you keep.

  6. Lee Church: How about if we call it “affirmative action” instead of “sexism”?

  7. Lee Church

    Obviously you are not willing to ditch your sexism. Thank you for sharing.