I would really like this to all be over on Tuesday.  I doubt she will concede, but nobody will be able to come up with a plausible path by which she could get the nomination...

I have been watching the superdelegate count over here:

http://demconwatch.blogspot.co...

On Friday, Clinton had a lead of 50, today it is down to 47.  As of 2/10, her lead was as much as 97.

that she plans on being around until Pennsylvania next month. The campaign has totally backtracked on the idea that they have to win both OH and TX. Last night on Saturday Night Live she jokingly kissed up to voters in five states; OH, TX, VT, RI, and PA

I'm tired of fighting with fellow Democrats.  We need to rally together to win in November and put our divides behind us.

In some ways I understand how wrapped up people can get in a given candidate, but some of the vitriol that I have seen as of late ought to be reserved for the Republicans.

and support Al Gore for President. That would rally everybody.

MJW

Let's get it over with!

We certainly don't need more negative ads about Obama if he will be the nominee, unless Hillary is trying to help McCain. That would be bad for the Party

How doe the DMN report amount to "Clinton caucus disruption vote suppression" in Texas?  It seems to me that if there is something that has been lacking in the Clinton campaign, it has been organization and training for the caucuses -- that is all this seems like to me. It says nothing about disrupting a caucus or suppressing a single vote.

Let take a look at the BOR's argument, shall we?

According to the DMN,

In training materials being handed out by the Clinton campaign, it is clear that they want to control those caucus sessions.

Well, I haven't read about Obama's training materials, if any, but I wonder, do the Obama supporters want to hold leadership positions in the caucus sessions also?

Of course they do! In fact, one of the keys to doing well in the caucuses in Texas is apparently holding the leadership position in the caucus, because as the Clinton campaign explains:

"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."

Well, that makes sense. So the training materials advise:

"DO NOT allow the supporter of another candidate to serve in leadership roles."

In other words, just showing up at the caucus is not enough. There are some critical things Captains should be aware of related to how the caucuses actually operate.

What if you, a Clinton supporter, are outnumbered at the caucus and an Obama supporter is appointed as the Chair. Well, your course is clear. Just remove your Texas-approved concealed weapon from its holster and start firing randomly. Don't worry about hitting other Clinton supporters -- we are already part of the un-dead, so bullets can't harm us -- this will only have the effect of driving Obama supporters from the caucus.

Oh, no, wait. I'm sorry. The Clnton campaign really says, according to the DMN:

"If our supporters are outnumbered, ask the Temporary Chair if one of our supporters can serves as the Secretary, in the interest of fairness."

Oh. man, that's even worse. You ... mean ... they're supposed to ask?!?!?!?

No, no. Not the comfy chair!

Now, what does the BOR report make of all this? Well, they draw the only logical inference available:

Now there can be only one purpose in trying to control the tally of votes under circumstances in which a campaign knows it's outnumbered, that it will lose an honest counting of the votes:  to alter the true vote. To cheat. To steal. To suppress the votes of Texas caucus attendees and subvert the caucus process.

[Horrible sound effect of needle skipping over an entire LP]

If Barack Obama is such a great candidate (and I think he is okay, actually) why do his supporters have to rely on such bamboozlement. Not only that, but such lame bamboozlement. I mean, at least contruct an argument that would fool a seven-year old.

So, the desire to occupy the role of Secretary in the caucus, should Clinton voters be outnumbered, can have "only one purpose. ... to alter the vote. To cheat. To steal. To supress ... votes."

Maybe the Clinton campaign is trying to "control the tally of votes" if they are outnumbered -- I have no idea. Nor, apparently, to the people who wrote this report on BOR. In fact, it is clear as a bell that all they are seeking, if they are outnumbered, is a seat at the table (as the Secretary) to ensure fairness.

Sounds to me like the BOR is utterly fried on this one, but there is a serious point to be made.

This kind of baseless and mindless argument is corrosive to our politics, whether it is done by the GOP, the Clinton campaign, the Obama campaign or supporters of either candidate.  While the pure cynicism and vileness of the BOR is no where need the recent GOP slurs against Obama in terms of degree or nature, they are equally dishonest, IMHO.

By assuming a nefarious intent on the part of Clinton as a premise of their argument (there can be "only one purpose." They are trying to "control" the tally of votes), they of course reach the conclusion that Clinton's intent is nefarious, while in fact all that is happening here is an effort by the Clinton campaign to participate fully and intelligently in the process.

Hopefully, Tuesday will provide us with some clarity in this race, even though if it does, that clarity will go against my candidate. And I'll still be voting for Obama in the general, and I won't have to hold my nose to do it.

But in doing so, I won't be kidding myself that I'll be voting for a new kind of politics. Obama is impressive, but if supporters like the BOR are to be any guide, we won't be turning any pages. It all looks like the same old wine to me in a brand new bottle.

If the hope that Obama offers dies, it won't be by the hand of Hillary Clinton or her supporters.

Agreed that the accusation of trying to manipulate results is just wild speculation.  What is probable is that the campaign wants control of the chair positions because they report the delegate count.  It has been reported that the Clinton campaign might file a lawsuit against the Texas Democratic Party over the procedures for the caucus.  And I think it follows that her campaign would naturally want to delay those results.  If it cannot be delayed by the courts, then it can be delayed by controlling the chairs.  

It is natural that her campaign wants to control the message.  They don't want to be in a situation where they slightly win the popular vote and the delegate count comes out close to the same time indicating she lost that battle.  Because the media would most likely downplay her victory if she lost the delegate count.  If her campaign can delay the caucus results, then the delegate count is a story that happens late the following day after people have stopped paying attention.  And the overall message that gets reported is that she won Texas.

Clinton's campaign is a contradiction on top of a contradiction.  She campaigns as the front runner with the most experience.  Obama wins Iowa, then she's for change.  She 'found her voice' in NH after a year of campaigning.  Then its back to experience again.  She looses 11 in a row.  She throws the kitchen sink at Obama and nothing sticks.  Her campaign wants to show that she's tough enough to be commander in chief, but complains that no one sees the more personable side.  After 30+ years in the public spotlight, I don't get that there are other sides to someone that haven't come out yet.  This reminds me of Al Gore, who each week was someone else (i.e. 2000 debates: too strong, too quiet, just right).  Hillary is grasping, after 14 months of the campaign she still doesn't have a compelling reason for why voters should be for her as opposed to not for Obama.

are poor strategic decisions that the Clinton camp made early on.  Perhaps the most obvious one was to focus only on the large states, and I suppose deep beneath this is the antagonism that they feel towards Dean's 50-state strategy.  As is somewhat typical for Clinton, they focus only on just the minimum for what they need to win the nomination, and they don't see the possibility of something much more than just winning an election.

After all of the dust settles, I am sure that there will be some good things written about how it was that they came to decide how they wanted to run their campaign.