Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Finger Liking Good | Even a Stopped Clock... »

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Re: Primary Pushing

posted by on February 12 at 11:34 AM

I made some calls and sent some emails to prominent local Clinton supporters about this rumor that the Clinton campaign is encouraging Washingtonians to vote in the Feb. 19 primary—in the hopes that it will become a counterweight to Obama’s big Feb. 9 caucus win here.

Turning weirdo Washington State into a demonstration project for the way that caucuses tend to favor Obama and primaries tend to favor Clinton could be a smart move for the Clinton camp. (And, as suggested below, a Clinton primary win here could give her Washington superdelegates some cover.)

One of the calls I made was to Linda Mitchell, president of the National Women’s Political Caucus of Washington and a member of Hillary Clinton’s Washington campaign committee. I asked her if she’d been hearing about Clinton people encouraging Washingtonians to vote in the primary, even though the primary won’t be used to apportion any Democratic delegates. Mitchell replied:

Am I hearing it? I’m feeding it. As the president of the Women’s Political Caucus, and as a supporter of Hillary Clinton, I think that the caucuses are not very representative of the voting public and I’m hoping that the primary does show greater support for Hillary Clinton.

Mitchell said informal discussions among local Clinton campaign committee members have produced some agreement that it would be smart to push for a Clinton win in the Washington primary. But she added that she’s not speaking for the national Clinton campaign on this.

“I wouldn’t say there’s a strategy,” Mitchell told me. “There may be. It would be great if everybody voted in the primary and Hillary showed a win there. But I don’t want to say I’m speaking for the national campaign.”

She said she hopes to use the campaign committee’s email lists, and her network of contacts, to encourage votes for Clinton in the primary, but that there’s no money for robocalls or a more formal effort. “It’ll be more of a viral, tell your friends kind of thing,” Mitchell said.

Clinton’s Washington campaign committee will be meeting this afternoon, and Mitchell said they’ll be having more discussions about the primary effort then.

UPDATE: Ben Smith gets an official Clinton campaign reaction to this: “Not a campaign effort.”

RSS icon Comments


I got in a fight with my girlfriend because she insisted on voting in this useless democratic primary, looks like i am going to lose this one

Posted by vooodooo84 | February 12, 2008 11:39 AM

Linda, if you're reading this (and you probably are) then enlighten me - when you say, "the caucuses are not very representative of the voting public" - what's your evidence for that?

Posted by Trey | February 12, 2008 11:42 AM

This may be a dumb question (and almost certainly answered elsewhere), but can I vote in the primary if I went to the caucaus?

Posted by Clint | February 12, 2008 11:43 AM

Well, golly. This fits right in to the Clinton campaign, doesn't it? They're all about clamoring for votes that don't count--MI, FL, WA's primary--and then trumpeting a "victory". Give it a rest, yo. For reals.

Posted by Michigan Matt | February 12, 2008 11:44 AM

Talk about sore losers. That's really pathetic.

Mailing ballot---now.

Posted by stilwell | February 12, 2008 11:45 AM

Numbers I've seen say 10% of registered voters participated in the caucuses. I think we all know people who were at work, taking care of kids, at soccer games - or who were intimidated or confused by the caucuses, or who are elderly/disabled and didn't come. Only people who can (or even who choose to) be there on Sat afternoon can participate in the caucus process, everyone can vote.

Posted by Linda | February 12, 2008 11:48 AM

i just had to fish my ballot out of the trash so that i could send it in (and its trash day - thanks for posting this before noon). these people are fucking ridiculous.

Posted by john | February 12, 2008 11:50 AM

When this harebrained ploy fails, Clinton will make excuses and blame the haters.

Posted by elenchos | February 12, 2008 11:52 AM

@3 you can do both. You probably should do both, since the paper's already been printed up and the money spent.

Posted by Katelyn | February 12, 2008 11:53 AM

And people wonder why Clinton has this problem with trust. If we can't trust her to play by the rules of her own party, which she agreed to at the start, then how can we trust her in office?

Posted by NaFun | February 12, 2008 11:53 AM

Yes, I would love to know too if it's possible to vote in the primary if I went to the caucus. And how can I get a ballot? If I have to vote for Obama twice to keep the Nixonian dirty tricks at bay, well then I will.

Posted by Travis | February 12, 2008 11:53 AM

The Clinton campaign is just plain sleezy. First you play as if the rules mean something, then turn around and say the rules should be ignored. The sleezy desperacy tastes Republican. This makes me feel much better about my getting off the fence finally last week between the two candidates.

Funny, I was thinking about this symbolic election this morning and was trying to remember where I put my "meaningless" ballot that for some reason our state government is going to have to pay to count even though is doesn't mean anything.

Now the Clinton campaign wants to use this money wasting shadow primary to improve their spin. Hey, if they didn't like the rules, it's not like the powerful WA pro-Clinton Democrats didn't know she was going to run! They could have pushed to go to a direct vote primary, but they only made noise about it when they found out that their supporters don't like talking to their neighbors.

Posted by cracked | February 12, 2008 11:54 AM

Travis, the ballot should have been sent to you weeks ago. Are you registered to vote?

Posted by Katelyn | February 12, 2008 11:55 AM

Did the Clinton campaign care so much about these supposed "disenfranchised" groups before actual voting began and complain about the caucus system then?

Hell no.

Posted by crackec | February 12, 2008 11:58 AM

newbie question: tossed my mail-in ballot away. will the 2.19 primary be conducted at precinct voting places or is it only mail-in ballots?

Posted by cineaste | February 12, 2008 11:59 AM

What's sleezy? Clinton campaign didn't invent the hair brained primary PLUS caucus, did they? Tell it to Sam Reed. Or Dwight Pelz.

Posted by watcher | February 12, 2008 11:59 AM

There is something to be said for actual voting; kind of like you do in an election. . .Funny Clinton seems to win those and there is a larger turnout.

And unlike the caucus I attended you can
be assured that these are actual

Posted by JoeBob | February 12, 2008 12:00 PM

Yep, I'm registered but I think I threw the ballot away since I was headed to the caucasoid.

Posted by Travis | February 12, 2008 12:00 PM

Can anyone tell me if this desperate strategy has been attempted in any of the other caucus/primary split states that Clinton has lost? Are there actually any other states that count delegates the same way as WA?

Posted by kid icarus | February 12, 2008 12:03 PM

There should be poll locations on the 19th for day-of voting, if you live in King or Pierce counties. As long as you were registered to vote by Jan 19 you're golden to go to one of the polling locations on the primary date and do your actual voting.
"Participating in the Political Party Caucuses and the Presidential Primary in WA State" from the Elections Board.

Posted by Katelyn | February 12, 2008 12:08 PM

No, no other state is stupid enough to hold a primary that allocates zero delegates.

I'm pretty sure there's going to be polling next Tuesday, right? It's not all-absentee.

Posted by Fnarf | February 12, 2008 12:10 PM

I fail to see how a primary that many Obama supporters may not vote in because as far as they're concerned their candidate already won and they here about this particular move too late is more representative. If you want to argue that in general there are flaws to the caucus system, fine. However, I don't think this primary having different results from the caucus demonstrates anything.

Posted by Beguine | February 12, 2008 12:10 PM

someone told me that their absentee mail ballot has a declaration that that a person voting in the primary will not vote in the caucus. i do not know if it is true.

Posted by caucusgoer | February 12, 2008 12:11 PM

There will only be poll locations in King and Pierce counties -- everywhere else is mail-in.

Posted by Katelyn | February 12, 2008 12:11 PM


Unlike the sleezy corrupt behind closed doors WA Republican Party, the WA Democratic party has clear rules that the delegates would be chose through the caucus only. (Personally, I like the direct primary and would like to have the party go back to that, but that isn't the current rule)

The WA Democratic party did not ask that these ballots be sent out. Prior to the caucuses it was made very clear to all through the media and other sources that the delegates would be chosen at the Democratic caucuses.

Talk about disenfranchising voters! Clinton supporters here are wanting to sneak up behind unsuspecting citizens who made the effort to follow the rules and sab them in the back of the fucking head when they think everything is over.

Posted by cracked | February 12, 2008 12:11 PM

My absentee ballot for the primary made me declare that I wouldn't vote in the REPUBLICAN caucus if I was a Democrat. You are allowed to vote in both the primary and the caucus, as long as you're voting for the same party.

Posted by Katelyn | February 12, 2008 12:13 PM

The caucuses are so much more exciting than filling in an oval on a primary ballot.

While I doubt that any amount of rewriting the narrative of the meaningless Democratic primary will sway the beauty contest results to Clinton, consider this factoid from the 36th District Democrats:

18,220 Democrats, equal to 60% of the number of Democrats who voted in the 2006 Primary, SHOWED UP at a specific time and place to caucus this past Saturday.

Statewide, turnout at the Democratic caucuses shattered previous attendance records. In the 36th District, the results of the caucuses are as follows:
1370 delegates in the 36th District:
315 went to Clinton (23%)
1037 went to Obama (75.7%)
16 went to Undecided (1.2%)
1 to Edwards
1 to Kucinich

Obviously if only people who support Clinton "turn out" in the primary, she'll get the most votes, which will net her zero delegates. Logic suggests otherwise.

You can see precinct results for the 36th District at

Posted by Janis Traven | February 12, 2008 12:14 PM

and how anyone can argue that it is not sleezy is beyond me. we've read in the paper, received phone calls and mail, and been visited by doorknockers for 2 weeks now - all with the message that the primary doesn't matter.

i'm a pco and i told the 50 people at my caucus that the primary would not count and I told at least another 20 people the same when i doorknocked my precinct. i was instructed to do so by the district leaders. AND the area caucus coordinator announced it to the 300 or so people attending at the begining of the caucus.

how anyone involved in this campaign on ANY level - local or national - can question the ethics of this is a mystery.

Posted by caucusgoer | February 12, 2008 12:18 PM

Here's the statement from the front page of the WA Democratic homepage,

"You may have received an absentee ballot for the February 19th Primary. The Primary will not count toward picking the Democratic candidate."

These Clintonites know this and to pretend otherwise is a real turn off.

I was an Edwards supporter and contributed what I could. I'm not quite at the point of giving money to Obama yet, but this kind of shit is pushing me.

Posted by cracked | February 12, 2008 12:19 PM

The best part about this primary is that I get to vote for my guy, Bill Richardson. Disagree with the choice all you want, and declare it to be a wasted vote, but at least I get to choose!
In a caucus, I could start off supporting Bill, but I'd be forced to change after the first round. That's disenfranchisement for you.
The dude's on the ballot: he should be eligible for votes, regardless of what the party elite says.

Posted by Sir Vic | February 12, 2008 12:19 PM


We remove comments that are off topic, threatening, or commercial in nature, and we do not allow sock-puppetry (impersonating someone else)—or any kind of puppetry, for that matter. We never censor comments based on ideology.

Posted by ryazryhzdfh | February 12, 2008 12:20 PM

Since the primary is meaningless anyway, I decided to vote for the candidate I really want. I wrote in Gore.

Posted by Geni | February 12, 2008 12:20 PM

@23: Not true. They are apples and oranges.

FWIW, there were many moms, disabled, and elderly people at my caucus. One guy had one of those spaceship-style electric wheelchairs. (Thankfully, our space was accessible.)

While some people can't get to the caucus, it doesn't mean that the people who took the time out to go don't count!

Posted by me | February 12, 2008 12:20 PM

What is it with meaningless voting in this state? First the viaduct and now this!

The politicians like to set up these votes so they can either crow about it if the votes support their position or dismiss it if it doesn't.

Posted by dat | February 12, 2008 12:21 PM

Sir Vic: if you don't like the way its done, (and I don't either) , you can get involved in the Democratic party to try to have it changed. The Democratic party is not a government agency, you have to join and participate if you want to have a say in how things are done.

At least our primary system was transparent and above board. The Republican WA caucus system is turning out to be a mass gobbledegook and to top it off the party leaders fudged the votes to favor their preferred candidate!

Posted by cracked | February 12, 2008 12:26 PM

The logic here seems to say:
'Let's just throw out the personal preferences of 200k voters who actually showed up to Caucus because they we're obviously misguided and they are not representative of the states population'

A world record Democratic caucus turnout means nothing if your candidate doesn't win. Time to end the Dynasty!!

Posted by Cato | February 12, 2008 12:28 PM

Regardless of how you vote, if you want it to be counted, make sure to check the box indicating party AND SIGN THE BALLOT or it will be tossed out, uncounted.

Posted by Andy Niable | February 12, 2008 12:32 PM

what i find strange is, Linda is the PRESIDENT of the National Women’s Political Caucus of Washington - and she thinks caucuses are unfair?!?

way to pick a president folks.

really though, i wish someone would of taken a poll of the people working on Saturday and ASKED if they would of gone to the caucuses is they could.

i mean really, assuming that the non-"activist" workers would of participated is lame. we had, what, 63 people in our group out of the 1000's of people that live around me. that means 1937 people had to work and/or had kids? please.

we brought our child, and you could of too.

Posted by cochise. | February 12, 2008 12:34 PM

And regarding the Politico item, if it's not a campaign action, then maybe they should let this woman on their state campaign committee know.

I thought they were desperate, as Clinton is looking to do badly this month and will probably be very nearly finished by March 4, but this is an obvious attempt to portray a "win" when there look to be few in the offing.

Mail your ballots, Obama supporters. Tell everyone you know using the magical Tubes of Internet. Nip this thing in the bud, big time.

Posted by stilwell | February 12, 2008 12:35 PM

Dang. There goes my vote for Richardson in the Primary ... now I have to vote for Obama ... oh well.

You MUST check the box saying you are a Dem - and you MUST sign the ballot where it says to do it (under that flap).

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 12, 2008 12:37 PM

Open primaries are better than this mess we have now. Bring back the open primary. NO PARTY REGISTRATION or oath signing required..:) Screw the party elites on both sides. Everyone should be allowed to vote for whoever they see fit regardless of what party they support or what party they are a member of.

Posted by Brian in Seattle | February 12, 2008 12:38 PM

We can put this discussion to rest by sending in our primary ballots and participate in this beauty pageant. I already sent mine. GO! OBAMA.

Posted by nelson, bremerton | February 12, 2008 12:41 PM

Lame. I definitely wouldn't have bothered to go vote on Tuesday if I hadn't read about this effort. It wouldn't be surprising, unless this news really gets out into the mainstream media, if Clinton did take the primary.

Posted by leek | February 12, 2008 12:42 PM

So if Hillary can win the primary, if claiming it means anything doesn't make her a national laughingstock, then the campaign will officially embrace the result.

But if she loses, or if the whole thing just looks stupid and desperate, then, well, it wasn't coming from her campaign in the first place so don't blame Hillary.

Which kind of tells you what a weasel of a president she would be. Of course saying that makes me a misogynist, right?

Posted by elenchos | February 12, 2008 12:48 PM

Yes, elenchos, it does, because both "weasel" and "woman" start with "w". You're obviously using code.

Posted by Katelyn | February 12, 2008 12:50 PM

The thing is, the ballot's not going to mean anything either, because so many people have been persuaded not to vote.

This state is just fundamentally stupid, I guess. It's as bad as the retarded viaduct vote, which similarly was designed to be uninterpretable.

Posted by Fnarf | February 12, 2008 12:54 PM

It will be interesting to see what happens with the Primary. I admit that I am a Clinton supporter - and I tried very hard to turn out Clinton supporters to the caucus locations. It was tough! Here are the three main reasons I heard - 1) I can't handle crowds (and these people were typically elderly). Many of these women were 80 and above and wanted to vote support Hillary, but couldn't. 2) I can't find child care. Again, many of supporters I talked to had kids and couldn't attend (and didn't want to bring small kids to the chaos, which I completely understand). 3) (and don't let this one piss you off Obamaphiliacs) I'm too intimidated. Obama supporters are very in your face - and it scares a lot of people who care about politics but don't want to yell. This is Seattle after all, right? Most people avoid confrontation here.

I say that we should ALL vote in the Primary. It's not going anywhere so let's see who turns out - what it looks like - and which is the more 'democratic' way to go. All of us can agree how the caucus experience is geared towards activists - and turns off the elderly, parents (especially Moms, because Moms typically are responsible for child care in this world), and non-confrontational types (which is about 97% of Seattle).

So, by all means, send in your ballots folks. It will be great to see what happens.

Posted by Bonnie | February 12, 2008 12:59 PM

I am tired of people writing off Caucuses as Obama events. Give the man some credit...a caucus is a democratic process. It is his fault that his voters are enthusiastic and that he has spent time and resources in these states. Hillary could have done the same, but she didn't. And don't cry about people being at work and not being able to vote. To Obama supporters not work as well? If it were important to them to cast their vote they would be there, period. When Obama lost New Hampshire he said, "We lost." Not only did Hillary not congratulate him on his victorys this weekend, but she makes excuse for each defeat along the way...i.e. that was a caucus, or there were alot of black voters. At what point is a win a win! I hate to say it, but she is acting right now like a sore loser...very UNpresidential!

Posted by Ryan | February 12, 2008 1:04 PM

it would be nice if clinton didn't agree with something she voiced that. she won't get the blame for pushing this vote, but will get the credit if she "wins" it.

and it serves no purpose. obama supports have no reason to vote. the rules might be stupid, but they are the rules. make your effort to change them, not this silly charade.

the vote means nothing. vote for gore.

Posted by infrequent | February 12, 2008 1:05 PM

i'm sorry. the does mean something. it means there is yet another tool to create division within the dem party.

Posted by infrequent | February 12, 2008 1:06 PM

Obama won the caucus by what, 2 to 1? In a primary under honest circumstances, Hillary would lose by a narrower margin, but these aren't honest circumstances. As many commenters have pointed out, Obama supporters are (correctly) assuming that there's no reason to send in their ballot. If Hillary spends enough money and energy on this, she could pull off a meaningless victory (that she will spin anyway) in the primary simply by virtue of the fact that Obama supporters aren't voting in it.

What utter nonsense. The Clinton camp is getting really desperate.

Posted by keshmeshi | February 12, 2008 1:06 PM

@47 your assumptions are not correct, not can they be proven. furthermore, the assumptions you plan on taking from the "vote" cannot also not be proven regardless of how many votes clinton gets.

Posted by infrequent | February 12, 2008 1:16 PM

Obama won the delegates, it's over. what is all the boo-hooing about voting in a sanctioned primary? the state sent out a ballot, you're entitled to use it. as stated, Hillary didn't tell you to do this, activists are telling you to do this. So either do it or don't. big deal.

Posted by watcher | February 12, 2008 1:30 PM

This whole post and thread is a load of crap.

This is an Obama State. Everyone knows it. The polls showed it, the caucus showed it.

IF Clinton WAS pushing the strategy discussed--it would be IDIOTIC because all indications are she would LOSE the primary here.

But just like the Obamafools immediately and venomously believed that Clinton was behind the robocalls giving the wrong date for the caucuses, they'll believe anything bad about Clinton, as suggested here in Joe MCCarthy fashion with no proof.

Throw it out there.
See if it sticks.
Make the bastards deny it=
Joe McCarthyism.

Oh and wehre is the analysis of why the vaunted Latino vote shift DIDN"T happen in Washington State?

IT's only a story, you see, if something pro Obama happens. "Obanma continues to fail to get Latinos" isn't a story.

The real ethnographic story is that Catholics are behind Clinton 2:1.

Catholics-the group that swings (politically) and picked the winning presidential candidate in the last 9 races.

This was in the NYT, but you won't read it here.

MAyor Adrian Fenty of DC is lauding Obama for supporting the charter schools in DC.

I guess that means Obama will help put in charter schools all over the USA.

Like: here in Washington State.

Charter schools, anyone?

Posted by unPC | February 12, 2008 1:35 PM

unPC - aren't you tossing Obama + Charter schools at us and seeing if it sticks? will it stick? what's the ratio?

filthy self-serving hypocrite.

Posted by cochise. | February 12, 2008 1:40 PM

HRC lurvs charter schools too, my dear:

School Choice & Charter Schools

I support innovative approaches to education reform within the public school system, such as charter schools and alternative routes to teacher certification. I believe our public school system is one of the most important foundations of our society because it exposes students to a wide variety of ideas and cultures – to the rich diversity of their community. I promote creative and pioneering initiatives to improve academic achievement and education outcomes for all students. Charter schools are one part of a menu of reforms that hold the potential to expand the supply of high-quality public schools, especially in disadvantaged communities. Because most charter schools have limited credit histories, they often lack access to public school facilities or traditional funding streams such as bonds. A full one in three charter school operators have reported that school construction costs are a major obstacle to their school's success. That is why I proposed legislation, the Investing for Tomorrow's Schools Act, which would create an innovative funding source to help build and expand charter schools. Inadequate school buildings should not be obstacles to innovative reforms. In addition, I strongly oppose voucher schemes that divert precious resources away from financially strapped public schools to private schools that are not subject to the same accountability standards.

Posted by annie | February 12, 2008 1:41 PM

Whatever. Let them waste their time. Me, I'm calling Wisconsin.

I've actually been relatively pleased with the non-coverage of Michigan and Florida. The Clintons can spin all they want, you can't spin straw into gold: that's a real "fairy tale" for you!

Posted by Michael Blackburn | February 12, 2008 1:43 PM

I was gonna vote for Nomo Caucus, but I guess I'll vote for Obama again.

Posted by Mike of Renton | February 12, 2008 1:45 PM

It's a bit rich that Clinton is engaging in these antics. My boyfriend and I were discussing it last night and both of us feel that she's cheapening the process when she refers to people that show up to a caucus as "activists".

That mantra brings up Bush's "activist judge" slight that is said in an effort to demean processes that this country undertakes. I think the same is going on here.

Clinton is making it very hard for me to support her come election day if she is the candidate for the Democratic Party. She's done a great job of shoving her foot in her mouth towards those that have participated in a legitimate process.

Posted by Dave Coffman | February 12, 2008 1:52 PM

I just posted a diary about this on DailyKos, and the resulting comments have uncovered some crazy shit... like people being told that they didn't have to go to the caucus if they've sent in their primary ballot.

Posted by K | February 12, 2008 1:56 PM

The ugly-ugly is about to start because when Hillary's down, it doesn't matter if she rips the party apart to get back on top. Today, the governor of Pennslvania, a big-time clinton supporter, said Obama is too black to win. (Of course this could not be purposely timed to coincide with the racial make up of the primaries voting today, could it.) Meanwhile, the Clinton camp is trying to get the media to look at Pennsylvania as one of the most important states (she's presently ahead by 30% there.) In other words, the most important vote will be that of a state the governor seems proud to identify as racist. Here's what the only African-American in the room had to say about the event. You can find his story here.
Our voluble governor weighed in on the primary fight between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama and what the Illinois senator could expect from the good people of Pennsylvania at the polls:

"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate," he said bluntly. Our eyes only met briefly, perhaps because the governor wanted to spare the only black guy in the room from feeling self-conscious for backing an obvious loser....

I know I have a habit of sometimes zoning out in these meetings, but it sounded to me like Mr. Rendell had unilaterally declared Pennsylvania to be Alabama circa 1963. Was he suggesting that Pennsylvanians are uniquely racist in ways that folks in the states Mr. Obama has won so far aren't? By the way, Mr. Obama won Alabama on Super Tuesday, thank you very much!

What accounts for Mr. Rendell's overweening confidence that, no matter what, he'll always find a way to overcome the odds by at least 17 points even in a racist commonwealth, but that Mr. Obama can't?

If Mr. Rendell, a Clinton backer, is right about Pennsylvania's racial attitudes, maybe we should get a new state slogan. How about: "You've got a friend with a pointy white hood in Pennsylvania"?
Can you imagine the outcry from women's groups if a governor blessed bias against women. How long do Clinton spokespeople keep to get making comments which so clearly diminish the hopes and aspirations of black youth. Clinton's campaign is disgusting. And so are any supporters that remain silent in the face of this ongoing race baiting.
and they

Posted by Mike in Iowa | February 12, 2008 1:59 PM

Brilliant strategy: "Let's spend money and resources on a state we've already lost."

Posted by Gitai | February 12, 2008 1:59 PM

It is apparent that most of you fear what will happen if there is a primary. Your comments suggest that you fear the caucuses aren't fair, open and democratic hence your strong opposition to the primary. You fear the primary will disclose this, should Hillary win. As for "changing the rules" it is you same haters of Hillary who are calling for a change in the function of the superdelegates. This primary system using superdelgates has existed for decades. Yet only now that Obama's slick hustle to attain delegates has not yielded him superdelegates do you haters want to "change the rules." Obama has been able to use the system to bamboozle you Hillary haters but the superdelgates are his equal and they aren't about to be hustled by him; they know exactly who he is, even though the media and your blindness to his jive rhetoric have kept you from knowing him. These caucuses are a sham and Obama has figured out the hustle and is working it to the max. The buck stops with the superdelegates. Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson-Lee, and John Lewis, to name just a few, all know his game and when the time comes they will put him in check. This election is too important to too many people to have it decided on the basis of racial emotions (Blacks are voting his color; and don't say anything to me about "race" because I'm Black, I live Black and I know Black), hatred of Hillary and foolishness, like caucuses.

Posted by Bernetha George | February 12, 2008 2:12 PM

If I were a donor to the Clinton re-election campaign this would make me take pause.....
Why don't they just get off their duffs and just do the job the first time? Does this make sense, to waste time and energy on something that is, on its face, very childish?

Posted by loretta | February 12, 2008 2:18 PM

If I were a donor to the Clinton re-election campaign this would make me take pause.....
Why don't they just get off their duffs and just do the job the first time? Does this make sense, to waste time and energy on something that is, on its face, very childish?

Posted by loretta | February 12, 2008 2:18 PM


"Obama has figured out the hustle and is working it to the max..."

are you saying he PIMPED the caucuses or "HUSTLED" them? You sure are talking a lot of "JIVE" for a clinton supporter.

Posted by cochise. | February 12, 2008 2:24 PM


First Obama wasn't black enough. Now he's too black. Could people just make up their minds already?

Posted by keshmeshi | February 12, 2008 2:30 PM

@63: Lemme start. #1, choosing a candidate based on gender emotions is not any better. #2, the suggestion that Clinton is trying to stack the primary by urging her supporters to vote in it, after it had been made perfectly clear to everyone that the primary "doesn't count", so that she can use the skewed results as a promotional tool.

Deceitful attempts at social ballot stuffing simply do not get my vote. Sorry.

HRC did plenty of work telling people to go to the caucuses, just like Obama did. So why, then, was HRC's caucus-pushing efforts so unsuccessful? Because she didn't do a good enough job of keeping Obama supporters in the dark?

Posted by K | February 12, 2008 2:34 PM

@63 what we fear is people like you taking the primary seriously. i have no clue who will win it, but you already think a clinton win means the caucuses were wrong. that is flawed logic: obama supporters are not going to vote.

not only that, but not using the washington primary is absolutely nothing like asking a super-delegate to reconsider who they are voting for. NOTHING.

so, what we fear is stupidity -- but alas! it's too late.

@53 it's a big deal if clinton people use this as 63 is -- to prove clinton should have won washington. or use it for any reason.

@54 we know who is pushing. it's not clinton herself. we understand that and still see, as in comment 63, how it is being spun.

Posted by infrequent | February 12, 2008 2:41 PM

See, but Hillary losing the primary vote here would be totally understandable, too. After all, everyone knows that meaningless primary voters are balanced in favor of activists and other groups that aren't her strong suit. Her husband never did well in meaningless primary votes either, after all.

Posted by tsm | February 12, 2008 2:43 PM

I like Obama a lot but I REALLY dislike some of his supporters on Slog and other boards. What a vile, negative bunch!

Posted by Babaloo | February 12, 2008 2:50 PM

@71. what? are you missing the fact that there are clinton supporters making blatantly false statements, and negative comments about obmama supporters ALL THE TIME? like your comment? you just called us a vile negative bunch. now, was the "vile" really necessary?

Posted by infrequent | February 12, 2008 3:12 PM

@72 Wow Mr not so infrequent - you certainly weren't at my caucus site. The Obama folks out front handing out stickers were making very offensive sexist comments - and, when they were later signing people in bc the room inside was too crowded, I caught them fill in the empty presidential preference area twice with Obama. I was outside trying with a precinct map helping to facilitate and noticed this. This is democracy? I showed up undecided - and was left really turned off by the caucus process - and by the Obama punks (and, before you say it, yes I know all Obama supporters aren't like this - the loudest ones are however in my experience).

Posted by killthecaucus | February 12, 2008 3:32 PM


The rude comments lobbed at Hillary Clinton and her supporters on this board and others far outnumber the reverse. Have Clinton supporters said rude things? Of course. It is just remarkable how vicious some of the Obama supporters are, and it seems to get worse every day. I want to hear positive things about your candidate, not slanderous, uncalled for attacks on his opponent.

What is "vile" is that anything Clinton does is construed as "evidence of evil intent" as Paul Krugman stated in his recent NYT column. He calls them "Clinton rules." This is done by SOME Obama supporters (NOT all) on these boards.

Some (actually most) of my best friends are Obama supporters, and I will support him in a heartbeat if he gets the nomination. But I am just really taken aback by the vitriol hurled at Clinton. I find it troubling.

Posted by Babaloo | February 12, 2008 3:32 PM

Hey killthecaucus @73:

Just curious...what were some of the sexist comments you heard at the caucus?

Somebody on one of these threads called Clinton a "warmongering bitch" today-that was a particularly vile one.

Posted by Babaloo | February 12, 2008 3:41 PM

i know, i have to change my name. but these elections get us worked up!

@74, look at the comment @73. the poster (presumably a HRC supporter) says nothing positive about clinton, only negative about obama supporters. that's the exact description you give!

i'm troubled by the vitriol i see as well. but i don't find it overwhelming. and i see just as much directed at obama supporters. people are too quick to assume everything is a personal attack -- and then respond with a personal attack! you seem very sensible, yet a post ago you called me vile.

need i mention i'd vote for whomever gets the nomination?

@73 i'm not sure what caucus you were at, but i was not at one where obama supporters were making blatant sexist remarks. i'm tired of the sexism, and i'm tired of any voice against clinton labeled as vile or sexist. it's very difficult to have meaningful discourse amidst all the noise.

Posted by infrequent | February 12, 2008 3:42 PM

@76 - did you read what I wrote? I said I showed up undecided - and I was very turned off by the Obama supporters and they're comments. They called Hillary 'mean' - 'scary' - 'a bitch' - and 'really, Bill is just going to be president someday.' Also, they targeted the HRC supporter who was a young woman trying to hand out stickers to supporters. She asked them to stop making sexist comments, and they told her she was 'difficult, like all Hillary supporters' and she could stand inside if she wanted to. When did it get so nasty? Why is it necessary to be so outwardly mean? I thought Obama was about change - and I didn't see that in this crowd. Same old nasty politics. Same old sexism.

So, I was undecided on both the caucus and the candidate and I walked away very troubled by the level of sexism thrown out by people who are supposed Democrats - and by the undemocratic things I saw (filling in of ballots etc).

Posted by killthecaucus | February 12, 2008 3:49 PM

@Mike in Iowa: This is exactly what Obama is trading in: haters spreading that negative energy over everyone and everything that they can every opportunity they get. The Governor's comment was "You've got Conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African American candidate." This is a true non-biased, non-racial remark. As an African American living in the United States of America, I know this to be true and I am not offened by the remark. There are African Americans here, myself being one, who are not ready for an African American, of Obama's ilk, to be president either. He encourages divisiveness along racial lines by playing to Blacks when he needs our support to get him elected and crying foul when any association with his being Black is made. He "cries foul" through supporters who distort comments made, as the one above, into "Today the Governor of Pennsylvania, a big-time Clinton supporter said Obama is too black to win." Is this your sentiment because the Governor's remarks said no such thing. This seems like the hatred of Obama's color is bleeding through the hatred of Hillary and attempts are being made to veil it with the Governor's truthful, factually based statement:recognizing "code" as I am so accustomed to doing. Hopefully, these other haters out here will care enough about your candidate Obama not to follow down this racist path. Obama's entire MO, during this election, has been to use your hatred to promote his cause: getting elected to the presidency anyway he can. Caucuses lend themselves to this type of distortion and false manipulation of facts. Primaries are done in private and without the influence of bullies, liars, haters and arm-twisters. No wonder Obama is winning so many caucuses, they were made for him and haters.

Posted by Bernetha George | February 12, 2008 3:51 PM

@77 i read your post. and with a name like "kill the caucus", with nothing positive to say about obama or his supporters, i really doubt you are not a clinton fan. but even if you are, you still said nothing positive about clinton and only negative things about obama supporters. negative things that don't echo obama's platform (by your own recognition) and negative things that absolutely no one can dispute because it is a personal anecdote.

calling someone mean and scary isn't sexist, and neither is the bill comment. the bitch is over the line in my opinion, and does taint the previous comments. but i read all the reports on caucus posted here, and read nothing else like that. i read that some did feel the obama folks were loud and obnoxious.

Posted by infrequent | February 12, 2008 3:54 PM


That's exactly what I want-meaningful discourse. But can you honestly say most of the discourse on this board is civilized? It isn't! I don't know why I keep coming here, to tell you the truth.

It isn't vile when someone makes a legitimate criticism of Clinton or when they say something positive about Obama or vice versa. But what I hear is illegitimate nastiness-the aforementioned "Clinton rules" where ANYTHING she does is considered evidence of her evil intent. Even incidents that have nothing to do with her or her campaign, like the "wrong primary date" robocalls are evidence of "dirty tricks" to some of the Obama supporters on Slog.

Posted by Babaloo | February 12, 2008 3:56 PM

Kill the caucus is the name I choose because that's how I feel after what I saw last Saturday. Can you understand that I'm talking about the caucus experience and not the candidates? I witnessed bullying and people filling in ballots for others - how much more undemocratic can you get?

And if you don't get how the mean, scary, and bill comments are sexist - there's no hope for you understand. Take those comments a level deeper and there is nothing to back them up - other than good old fashion sexism and double standards.

Posted by killthecaucus | February 12, 2008 4:06 PM

"You've got Conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African American candidate." This is a true non-biased, non-racial remark.

it is a racial remark because it is about race. it is also a racist remark because it says you shouldn't support an african american because there still some racists out there. and it is upsetting to think that racism is so prevalent these days that a governor thinks an african american cannot win an election.

the same would apply if it was said about clinton regarding sexism.

Posted by infrequent | February 12, 2008 4:06 PM

killthecaucus : I doubt very much you were there.

Posted by cracked | February 12, 2008 4:07 PM

I can believe there are really over 80 comments on this! Cummon people -- pay attention!!! On Feb 19th voting for Obama or Clinton are just the same: a complete waste of time.

Me, I'm votin' in a primary that actually matters. (vis-a-vi delegates, at least)

Join me -- Vote Huckabee!!!

Help fracture the Republican party into useless little bits of self-rightous flotsam, easily washed away in the coming sea of change.

Posted by Timrrr | February 12, 2008 4:11 PM

at face value, calling someone mean is not sexist.

now, as i said, if the same person said clinton was bitch, then that would taint the mean comment.

but i get tired of people crying sexist when a legitimate point is raised, or when a non-issues based comment is expressed.

but as i've said on this board far too many times to go by the moniker infrequent, the sexism on display during this election is infuriating.

but so is the racism.

Posted by infrequent | February 12, 2008 4:16 PM

@84 - well, if you didn't vote in the Dem Caucus, that is an option.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 12, 2008 4:27 PM

okay okay okay... i'm done for today. honestly! i don't even in the smallest, remote way want to defend a sexist comment. and there certainly has been too many of them.

but that has nothing to do with the primary vote. NOTHING! this thread is about potential propaganda from the WA primary... meaning people plan on using the results -- if they can -- to draw the conclusions that the results cannot show.

obama voters have no incentive to vote compared with clinton voters. yet already people are saying that the primary could tell us something. something about caucuses. something about clinton. something about voters. NO. IT CANNOT.

Posted by infrequent | February 12, 2008 4:29 PM

Brian @ 41:

Do you live in a cave or something? The "blanket primary" has thankfully been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme court, and it's never coming back.

Posted by ivan | February 12, 2008 4:34 PM

I think this is a good idea, I'll have to dig out my ballot and vote.

The caucus is slanted toward the old, the young, those who don't work weekend retail, and the childless. Young children, a job, being homebound for a disability, or out of town all preclude going to the caucus. It irritated me so much that I refused to drop money in their little basket 'o funds. Bad as being at church, guilt the congregation into giving.

Phooey, I say. It's lame and expensive and doesn't let everyone participate.

I pay as little mind as to whom it might benefit, as the whiny republicans who hate having the homeless registered to vote or bussed to their voting sites in the general election. If you don't make voting as wide as possible, then you just want an oligarchy, not a democracy.

Posted by SpookyCat | February 12, 2008 5:21 PM

I caucused for Obama, but I voted for Hillary in the primary. Am I the only one to do this? I like them both, but ultimately think the country needs a breath of fresh air. However, I wanted to have my cake and eat it too, and voting for Hillary in the meaningless primary was a way I could sort of feel like I could do this.

But the reason the primary should be meaningless is because jackasses like me split our votes.

Posted by exelizabeth | February 12, 2008 5:57 PM

Also, I don't think sexist OR racist comment and insinuations are worse-- they are BOTH awful and it's really disgusting that we're fighting over which is worse.

I haven't heard Obama's campaign condemn the sexism leveled at Clinton, nor have I heard Clinton's campaign condemn racism leveled at Obama. I have to admit I'm more tuned into the sexist stuff, so I'm not as aware of the blatantly racists stuff that's been said.

Anyway, here's why I like Hillary: I think she will be a tough (but not tough in a macho-bullshit way), kick ass president. I think she will get a ton done right out of the gates.

Here's why I like Barack: he's new. He's fresh. He's inspiration. The country is exhausted of fear, and he offers relief from that. I do think he'll make some beginner bumbles at the start, especially in the name of bipartisanship, but I have faith he'll find footing.

So there you go. I like them both. I am pretty disgusted by a lot of their supporters. Obama's supporters seem worse, but I think that's probably just because they outnumber Clinton's so much in this state.

Anyway, you know who the REAL assholes are? McCain. Huckabee. I'm keeping my eyes on my prize, and I think intra-party fighting is stupid, unflattering, and pointless. So I'm trying not to engage.

Posted by exelizabeth | February 12, 2008 6:15 PM

People who vote Hillary don't really want change. Hillary is a symbol of the 90s and that's what people want. Gen X wants the 90s back. But the old ways (nor her centrist Third Ways) can bring us the change we need. We don't need the half-assed pseudo-change that HRC *might* bring if it suits her ambitions and corporate backers. We need the change that a fresh candidate with open ears and broad understanding will certainly bring. And we need the leadership of someone who isn't afraid to buck the Same Old Way of doing things, or who makes decisions based on common sense and common good rather than on political safety and mass delusion.

If Hillary becomes president, I won't be able to trust her until 2013.

That's not a sexist comment. That's an I don't trust her comment. So you people can all stop your gender-baiting. KTHXBYE.

Posted by K | February 13, 2008 8:15 AM

@92: It's like, you know, those creaky old Gen Xers are just sooooo Nineties! I just loves my Slog.

Posted by J.R. | February 13, 2008 9:45 AM

My favorite quote here... "Only people who can (or even who choose to) be there on Sat afternoon can participate in the caucus process, everyone can vote." I see as opposed to a primary where only those people who can or who choose to go to the polls can participate? Good reasoning Linda. Good reasoning.

Posted by apttitle | February 19, 2008 5:05 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).