Culinary Workers Union Fliers Hit Hillary Over Caucus Lawsuit

Comments (122)

Michael A wrote on January 15, 2008 12:37 PM:

I thought we were rid of rove. I guess he is advising the clinton campaign.

Josh wrote on January 15, 2008 12:38 PM:

They ought to be mad.

TexModDem wrote on January 15, 2008 12:40 PM:

Why does Obama want to make voting difficult for everyone but his own supporters?

I thought he was a fair and balanced politician who was all for broad participation.

Shame, shame, shame on Obama and his supporters for engaging in voter suppression efforts by denying other voters the same opportunity as his own supporters.

Matthew wrote on January 15, 2008 12:40 PM:

Union in-fighting aside, I read the complaint and am at a loss as to why anyone could say the casino-based caucus sites are legitimate. Caucuses, especially lasting only a couple of hours, disenfranchises a lot of folks. Adding union-worker specific sites and giving them 10x the representation of other voters is rediculous. I don't live in NV but would hope a judge closes down these casino caucus sites so that the NV caucus can have some credibility in our 2008 election. Otherwise, I would suggest that the national party should strip NV of its delegates.

magster wrote on January 15, 2008 12:42 PM:

If the judge does not enjoin the at-large precincts, Hillary could lose big-time.

Quite the high-stakes gamble for a Las Vegas strip issue, how appropriate.

TexModDem wrote on January 15, 2008 12:42 PM:

And shame on them for lying about Clinton's involvement in the law suit.

Dave C wrote on January 15, 2008 12:42 PM:

Two-word response to Matthew: Concern troll.

Angry Vet wrote on January 15, 2008 12:42 PM:

TexModDem-

Care to elaborate or quantify that statement? Where is the "Obama and his supporters for engaging in voter suppression" coming from?

Troll.

Angry Vet wrote on January 15, 2008 12:44 PM:

Dave C-

Right on the money.

PEOPLE, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND POLITICAL PARTIES.

Unless, of course, you are the Bush Administration.

Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 12:44 PM:

Too bad on 9% of them are in the country legally

TexModDem wrote on January 15, 2008 12:44 PM:

The question is not why Hillary is not involving herself in the lawsuit in which she is not a party, but why Obama is trying to obstruct a lawsuit to which he is not a party.

What voter suppression investigations and lawsuits would he obstruct if he became president?

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 15, 2008 12:49 PM:

Why does Obama want to make voting difficult for everyone but his own supporters?

Huh? What are you talking about? Sen Obama did not create the at-large caucus sites. These were created and approved by all parties concerned months before the Culinary Workers' and Service Employees' unions endorsed Sen Obama. Sen Obama does not want anything at all in this lawsuit. He is not party to it in any fashion (even by means of surrogates). This is a suit between the Teacher's union and the NV Democratic Party; the Culinary Workers and the Obama campaign have no part in it at all (except as interested bystanders).

Incidentally, how does opening caucus sites on the strip (on Saturday) make caucussing "harder" for anyone else? It would not make it one bit easier for the teachers to caucus if sites were opened in the schools because most teachers will not be in their schools on Saturday. Same for government workers, insurance salesmen, bank employees, etc. Most workplaces are closed on Saturday, so caucus sites in workplaces make no sense for most folks. Casino employees are a glaring exception to that general rule in NV, so the state democratic party made an exception for them.

In any event, all campaigns, unions, voters and party officials had ample opportunity to ask for other at-large caucus sites months ago when this plan was being formulated. How is it that this only now becomes a point of contention for the teachers' union & al?

Jeremy wrote on January 15, 2008 12:51 PM:

TexModDem. The Clintons have so far refused to call off their surrogates that have pushed forward this suit to take away caucus sites from workers because their union endorsed Obama.

The Clinton campaign is being run by a union-busting mercenary, Mark Penn:

On June 6, in response to Berman's story, Teamster president James Hoffa and UNITE HERE president Bruce Raynor sent a letter to Clinton about Penn, expressing their "distress" over his firm's role in "the effort to undermine workers right to organize at Cintas, a campaign our unions are involved in, [which] is particularly disheartening." Their letter went on to say that they "do not want to see you or the Democratic Party embarrassed. We look forward to hearing back from you on this matter." Other labor leaders, such as AFL-CIO president John Sweeney and Service Employees International Union president Andrew Stern, have privately told the Clinton campaign of their misgivings about Penn.

- http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/06/16/hillary_and_mark_penn/

When Bill was president, Penn and other anti-labor lobbyists were given more policy input than Labor Secretary Robert Reich.

Upon securing labor's blessing, Clinton accused President George H.W. Bush of "sucker-punching" American workers and pledged a "common commitment" to the "forgotten middle class." Those words soon rang hollow, as Clinton's presidency confirmed labor's worst suspicions. Clinton scrapped an economic stimulus package in favor of balancing the budget, appointed Wall Street bankers like Robert Rubin and Roger Altman to top positions in the Cabinet and ferociously twisted arms to pass the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and subsequent trade pacts. Bill and Hillary Clinton rejected single-payer healthcare reform in favor of a complicated "managed care" plan meant to appease the private sector and only tepidly supported a strikers' bill of rights, which failed to pass Congress. He named a good progressive, Robert Reich, as Labor Secretary but gave decision-making power affecting labor and the economy to Rubin and Altman and, later, political strategists Dick Morris and Mark Penn. By 1996 Reich had resigned, accusing Clinton of selling out.

- http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070827/berman

Mark Penn is Hillary's brain, her Karl Rove. She can't distance herself from Bill on this one. Hopefully there will be a backlash among low-income voters when they learn that the Clintons let their surrogates try to take workers' voices away by taking away their caucus sites. That should help get the truth about Hillary Clinton out.

Joshua wrote on January 15, 2008 12:51 PM:

Obama is taking a position on a lawsuit, not obstructing it. My question is how could anyone consider Clinton a true democrat if she Clinton wants to obstruct voting of the poor.

sue wrote on January 15, 2008 12:52 PM:

1. The location of the sites means nothing. You can vote for whomever you wish.

2. Clinton is concerned that the union members will show solidarity and vote for Obama in droves.

That's all this is about. If culinary union members are not going to vote for Clinton, she wants to make it difficult for them to vote.

Also, ALL the campaigns were involved in the process of determining how the caucuses would run in NEVADA - ALL of them, so it is nonsense for the Clinton camp to try to shut down caucus sites now.

waka waka wrote on January 15, 2008 12:52 PM:

TexModDem - Obama has nothing to do with any of this. The whole caucus/casino plan was decided way back in MArch of last year by the Nevada Democratic Party. Hillary had no problem with it until the union endorsed Obama. And besides, the caucuses aren't just for union members. Anyone who works near the Strip can go. So quit crying and lying.

Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 12:53 PM:

Nice very nice

Massa and Missus Bill suppress the vote down on the plantations

NCSteve wrote on January 15, 2008 12:54 PM:

Dear brand new posters who have suddenly popped up to express their deep and abiding concerns on this issue:

Welcome. Always glad to see new voices.

And now that the pleasantries have been dispensed with, the CWU got the at-large sites because they asked for them. The teacher's union had every opportunity to seek an accomodation for whatever handful of their members will have to work in schools on caucus day as the CWU did. They didn't do so. They also didn't have a problem with the CWU's accomodation until about fifteen seconds after Obama got the CWU's endorsement.

And if anyone thinks Hillary didn't know this suit was coming and couldn't have stopped it before it was filed, I've got some exciting real estate investment opportunities I'd like to talk to you about.

Jeremy wrote on January 15, 2008 12:56 PM:

Matthew. When the Nevada Dem Party decided to have a caucus they wanted it on Saturday. The Culinary Workers did not like that because they work on Saturdays. It's their biggest day. The agreement that they reached so that they would not be shut out of the process was to have these at-large sites. There's absolutely nothing to support your bogus claims that this wasn't fair. It was all done in the open and all agreed to. . . until Obama won the endorsement Hillary thought she'd get.

BTW, could the Clinton strategy to discredit the SC and NV votes be any more transparent. Shame. We saw this in Iowa as well, where as soon as they saw they'd lose they started claiming there was something wrong with encouraging eligible student voters to participate. The voices of SC and NV are just as important as those of NH.

Publicus wrote on January 15, 2008 12:57 PM:

Can we just call them Concern Puppets?

Wes Shell wrote on January 15, 2008 12:58 PM:

Wow! I don't get it. How is Obama obstructing voter rights? Instead of clintons supports crying and trying to take away obama supporters ability to partcipate why not instead push so that her supporters aka teachers union, can have the same rights? Shouldn't we make it easier for everyone to participate instead of making the political process even harder then it is and pushing people away from it even more? It amazes me how far people will stray from our countries basic principles of freedom and rights for all, country ran by the people, everyone's right to vote, and to stray just say they can win! Crazyness! What happened to the america that people around the world could look at in awe, why are we tearing ourselves apart. This is exactly why we need someone like Obama as preseident, to stop all the stupid fighting amungst ourselves so we can be a united country again. I am ashamed.

Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 1:01 PM:

I disagree with the special caucus sites, since I didn't know about them before, I cannot say I had this opinion before. I do think the timing does indicate that there is more to the suit than fairness. What I cannot say with certainty is whether Hillary could or could not make it go away. To assume she could make it stop seems unfounded, however if she is against it, she could say so, but would that be the right thing to do? I don't know. Of course Barack Obama does not support it, it would seemingly (big assumption) benefit him the same as disposing of them would seemingly (big assumption) help Hillary.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 15, 2008 1:01 PM:

Totally off-topic, but I just noticed that the election calendar to the immediate right of the com-box shows:

8:00 PM Democratic Presidential Debate - Las Vegas, NV

8:00 PM Hillary Clinton - Debate in Las Vegas, NV

8:00 PM Democratic Debate - Las Vegas, NV

Two questions:

1) Are three entries really necessary for just one event?

2) Is Sen Clinton really such a front runner that this debate can be termed the Hillary Clinton debate just as accurately as the Democratic Presidential Debate?

;-)

TruthSeeker wrote on January 15, 2008 1:01 PM:

TexModDem:

Do you even know what you're talking about? The caucus sites were setup to make it EASIER for people to vote. Closing them down will make voting more difficult. That's why the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), who has ties to Hillary Clinton's campaign, are suing; they think the sites will allow Hispanic and black voters, who comprise much of the Culinary Workers Union, to vote heavily for Sen. Obama.

Interestingly, no one said anything until the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Obama, even though the NSEA was present during meetings establishing the sites MONTHS ago. Now, the Clinton campaign, including Hillary herself, have tried to paint this lawsuit as a way to ensure that more people have a vote. Give me a break! They're trying to disenfranchise voters to win an election. That's the bottom line. Is anyone naive enough to believe that this lawsuit would have happened if Hillary had gotten the Culinary Workers Union endorsement, as her campaign and her NV staff expected?

When politicians engage in such underhanded tactics, we should be calling them on it, not justifying or explaining it away. People carelessly make comparisons to Bush and Republicans, but this is one situation where the comparison is warranted; they used similar tactics to suppress the vote in FL in 2000 and OH in 2004. Democrats decried the tactics at the time. But now it's okay?!

Michael A wrote on January 15, 2008 1:02 PM:

I have a simple solution for all this nonsense regarding making it as difficult as possible to vote. We should all be able to vote over the internet. You can buy anything online from cars to houses to whatever. Why can't we freaking vote on line? Think about the citizen participation and getting people to vote. Let's move into the 21st century.

AlwaysTipTheWaitress wrote on January 15, 2008 1:03 PM:

Before she eeked out a win in NH, Clinton whined about the Iowa caucuses being undemocratic. Now, she is pushing a voter suppression suit funded by her minions in the AFT. Of course, the Culinary Workers should call her on it. Politics ain't beanbag. Far more scurrilous was the Emily List funded attack on Obama's record on Choice sent to women voters in NH. Obama and his supoorters should call Clinton on every slimy thing she does. Her supporters would certainly do the same. Keep those elbows sharp,Big Guy.

eric wrote on January 15, 2008 1:04 PM:

I wonder if they are setting up special caucus sites at brothels, too...

Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 1:05 PM:

I know most here's opinions are based on their deep support for Obama and responses won't be reasoned, I'm of the "I'm equally supporting whoever the Dem. nominee is" (to say that McCain is equal/the same/better than Clinton is one of the more ludicrous things I've heard, will you say that if they have the opportunity to appoint someone to the Supreme Court?)" persuasion but this does make sense to me from the poster above:

Incidentally, how does opening caucus sites on the strip (on Saturday) make caucussing "harder" for anyone else? It would not make it one bit easier for the teachers to caucus if sites were opened in the schools because most teachers will not be in their schools on Saturday. Same for government workers, insurance salesmen, bank employees, etc. Most workplaces are closed on Saturday, so caucus sites in workplaces make no sense for most folks. Casino employees are a glaring exception to that general rule in NV, so the state democratic party made an exception for them.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 15, 2008 1:06 PM:

What I cannot say with certainty is whether Hillary could or could not make it go away.

This is a very fair point. I am trying to reserve judgement on this point right now, because I think that one ought to get the benefit of the doubt. If it cannot be shown that Sen Clinton's people are behind this it should not be held against her and the fliers linked up top are going too far. That said, I would like to hear Sen Clinton actually condemn the lawsuits with her own voice.

eric wrote on January 15, 2008 1:06 PM:

Michael A wrote on January 15, 2008 1:02 PM:
I have a simple solution for all this nonsense regarding making it as difficult as possible to vote. We should all be able to vote over the internet. You can buy anything online from cars to houses to whatever. Why can't we freaking vote on line? Think about the citizen participation and getting people to vote. Let's move into the 21st century.

A caucus isn't just voting. A caucus is a whole process that many of us value. If Nevada wants to caucus, good for them.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 15, 2008 1:09 PM:

You can buy anything online from cars to houses to whatever. Why can't we freaking vote on line?

I was living in MI in 2004 and their democratic caucus allowed online participation. I cast my (totally wasted) vote for Dick Gephardt online and found the experience to be a pleasantly convenient alternative to my usual trek to the Burns Park elementary school in Ann Arbor. In other words, I agree with Michael A on this one. Internet voting has worked for our party before, so I do not see it cannot be used more widely.

Angry Vet wrote on January 15, 2008 1:12 PM:

Hmm, where did all of the concern trolls go? No pithy comebacks?

I guess it's settled then:

1. Opening at-large caucus sites on the Strip does not make it harder for people to vote.
2. All parties agreed to the caucus plan last March.
3. This lawsuit did not appear until after the Culinary Workers endorsed Obama.

Any questions?

Michael A wrote on January 15, 2008 1:12 PM:

Greg, the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit are clinton supporters. Do you actually think that these people arbitrarily did this without the approval of the clinton campaign? Of course not. Also, why just try to suppress people from voting who would be voting for obama? Who would that conceivably help? Only one candidate, clinton. Clinton is obviously behind this.

John Q wrote on January 15, 2008 1:12 PM:

The Clinton campaign and the teacher's union had months and months to object to this set up -- a set up they helped to develop. Why then did the lawsuit get filed days after Obama won the culinary workers union endorsement. My lord!
Clinton supporters, you are continually force to come up with lame excuses as to why this stuff is happening -- stuff like Bob Johnson's comment -- what did you all say it was about?... oh yes, community organizing -- the thing one can never talk about in public. Right.
Hillary, come out against the lawsuit. Not worth winning with republicanesque vote suppression dirty tricks.

AlwaysTipTheWaitress wrote on January 15, 2008 1:22 PM:

Let's clarify. The teachers unions -- on national and state levels -- are openly backing Clinton. Iheir political arms interact constantly with Clinton on an informal basis. Of course, the Nevada AFT would nor sue unless they got the nod from Clinton. Please. As I said, it's not beanbag. They are playing the consumate professional game that served Clinton so well in NH. Obama's professional folks rightly counter.

brewmn wrote on January 15, 2008 1:30 PM:

"If it cannot be shown that Sen Clinton's people are behind this it should not be held against her and the fliers linked up top are going too far. "

Jake Tapper wrote a post listing all the connections that the plaintiffs had with Hillary's campaign. While I am guessing that it would be impossible to prove that she authorized the lawsuit, the connections are numerous and directly involve senior officials in her Nevada organization.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 15, 2008 1:30 PM:

Dear Michael A,

As I understand it, some of the plaintiffs are Clinton supporters. Some are Edwards' supporters. That said, the fact that a supporter files a lawsuit does not mean that s/he is acting on behalf of the campaign. I think fairness obliges us to give each candidate the benefit of each doubt, even when the candidate is not our own favorite. As I said, however, it would be a lot easier for me to extend this benefit-of-the-doubt if Sen Clinton would condemn this with her own voice.

Jeremy wrote on January 15, 2008 1:33 PM:

Let's all be very clear that this isn't teachers vs culinary workers. It's a small handful of Clinton surrogates not rank and file teachers that are responsible for this. Teachers have actually spoken out against this tactic of trying to shut down caucus sites to shut up workers:

"This lawsuit is all about politics," the teachers' letter reads. "It's widely known that many of our union's top officials support Senator Clinton and now that the Culinary Workers Union has endorsed Senator Obama, they're using our union to stop Nevadans from caucusing for Senator Obama."

- http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/barackobama/story/0,,2240869,00.html

When the culinary workers decided to endorse Obama based on his track record of supporting workers they became invisible to Clinton.

Jeremy wrote on January 15, 2008 1:41 PM:

Greg DeLassus. Clinton can have the benefit of the doubt on prior knowledge. She can't have it on her unwillingness or inability to reign in the overzealous supporters working to shut workers voices up.

Carl wrote on January 15, 2008 1:42 PM:

Clinton, Clinton over everything! They will stop at nothing, unless we show them it does not work! The only uniter HRC can ever be is of the GOP - she will divide the Dem. party, the races, genders, and now wants to bust the unions, too?! Please show them we deserve better!

timbnyc wrote on January 15, 2008 1:45 PM:

Some of the plaintiffs are recorded as being present and voting at the meeting where the plan for the caucuses was passed unanimously.

Michael A wrote on January 15, 2008 1:48 PM:

Gregg, I agree on the benefit of the doubt issue. However, there are just too many things going on that have shattered any reasonable doubt about what clinton is doing. Even though we would never be able to prove that clinton is behind this, I will bet you a lunch that she is. It's only logical. There is no other logical explanation why this lawsuit was filed after nearly a year after the sites were set up and approved.

It's that old saying, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck. All the facts point to the logical conclusion. Remember the clinton campaign is a well oiled political machine and everything is being done for a purpose and under its direction. I refuse to believe otherwise.

grover_rover wrote on January 15, 2008 1:49 PM:

It is funny, with all of the Clinton-Rove tactic comparisons that can be made, another one presents itself: deviously clever much of the time, but also VERY short sighted. Just like the subtle race-baiting, this has in short order blown up in their faces.

The fact that these people get what is coming to them, even though it takes damn near 8 years sometimes, gives me a little bit more faith in some sort of cosmic balance, karma, if you will.

Point, democracy!

Carl wrote on January 15, 2008 1:50 PM:

These locations were determined months ago, when HRC thought she'd be "crowned" already at this point. The process included the very people now crying foul and trying to block it, as they fear it might not be in their favor. This is so transparant, and I hope Nevada will show by example that they are no longer accepting these Rove-like tactics.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 15, 2008 1:58 PM:

There is no other logical explanation why this lawsuit was filed after nearly a year after the sites were set up and approved.

Sure there is. It is just as logical to believe that some of her supporters are acting in this way, hoping to benefit her, without her approval or support. The fact that she benefits if this suit succeeds does not prove that she is behind it, any more than it would prove that Sen Obama is behind it if the whole thing back-fired by so angering the Culinary Workers that their turnout doubled. One can benefit from an event not of one's making. Until I see real proof that Clinton's campaign has a hand in this, I am regarding her as innocent. As I have said all along, however, I would much prefer to hear it from her own mouth that she is not involved and does not support this sort of tactic.

Southpaw wrote on January 15, 2008 2:07 PM:

Hey Matthew, you say you read the lawsuit, but you should try doing a little more homework before spouting your talking points. The reason for the superficially different ratio of delegates at the at-large caucuses is that we're talking about apples and oranges here. In a normal NV caucus precinct, the number of delegates is determined *beforehand*, a calculation based on the number of registered voters in that particular precinct, that is, the number of *potential* caucus-goers. The at-large delegates, in contrast, are determined not by how many people *could* show up and caucus at the at-large location (since that's a lot harder to quantify... the state of NV doesn't keep as good records on who all exactly is working the Sat. nite shift at McDonald's as they do on who lives where), but rather, on who actually *does* show up. The state Dem party, after I would imagine some analysis based on past levels of primary voter turnout, must have concluded that a good estimate for the percentage of eligible primary voters who actually show up is 10 PERCENT, and that thus, the at-large precincts should be awarded delegates based on this multiple, as it will avoid diluting THEIR votes vis a vis the rest of the precincts in NV.

If you really read the complaint carefully, you'd have seen that this 10x multiple allegation was just a throwaway, and something that even the plaintiffs know holds no water. The same can be said for the entire lawsuit, of course, but I felt it was important to correct this misinformation you are spreading.

TexModDem wrote on January 15, 2008 2:15 PM:

Angry Vet: "PEOPLE, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND POLITICAL PARTIES."

Translation: it is okay to set up a voting system that favors certain voters (in this case those who will likely vote for Obama) and discriminates against others as long as the system is set up by a party and not the government.

Still would beg the question as to why Obama wants to suppress voters who support other candidates by providing extraordinarily favorable voting conditions for his own supporters and unfavorable voting conditions for anyone else and why he opposes attempts to ensure that ALL voters have an equal opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice.

He may not LEGALLY have to allow such equal access, but it sure contradicts his so-called fairness, sharing, Kumbayah preachiness.

TexModDem wrote on January 15, 2008 2:18 PM:

Greg: "He is not party to it in any fashion (even by means of surrogates). This is a suit between the Teacher's union and the NV Democratic Party; the Culinary Workers and the Obama campaign have no part in it at all (except as interested bystanders)."

So, if Obama by not being a party to the lawsuit and not having asked for these alternate voting locations is not involved, then why is Clinton who is also not a party to the lawsuit and is not involved in denying these alternative voting locations?

As usual, Obama supporters impose double standards.

Just like Bush supporters have done through the last 7 years.

Eight years of a cult of personality presidency is enough - we don't need eight more.

Michael A wrote on January 15, 2008 2:18 PM:

Ok gregg, I respectfully disagree. I have another telling example of the tactics of the campaigns over the last few weeks. Clinton supporters and the clintons themselves have been making racially charged statements in order to get the obama campaign to lash back claiming "racism." It is pretty obvious based on the statements. After the obama campaign refused to do so, the clintons claimed that they did through the mainstream right-wing media. Now the clintons are requesting a truce with themselves. It really is pathetic.

I try to watch a few news shows on cable. Invariably you have the "journalist," and I use that term loosely, try to bait obama supporters and people tied to the campaign to make the charge. They refuse to do so repeatedly. These are tangentially involved supporters from all over the country. I am sure and will bet you a lunch again that obama has reeled in his supporters and told them not to take the bait, stay positive and above the fray and they are doing just that. Of course the campaigns choreograph everything, such as the clintons are doing with their "supporters." Their supporters keep doing these ridiculous charges to bait obama supporters and obama supporters refuse to take the bait, based on instructions from the campaigns.

Same thing with this stupid lawsuit. If the clinton supporters were taking it upon themselves to file, I guarantee you they contacted the campaign first at a minimum to get the ok. If they are such die hard supporters that they are willing to spend the tens of thousands of dollars to file a lawsuit and prosecute the lawsuit, they clearly would not want to do anything to harm clinton's campaign, so they would get the ok first.

There is absolutely no way that clinton is innocent concerning the filing of this suit nor is she innocent of the campaign theme that has been promoted by surrogates. Sorry.

TexModDem wrote on January 15, 2008 2:22 PM:

Michael A: "I refuse to believe otherwise."

Very much like Bush and his supporters believed that Saddam had WMDs and refused to believe otherwise and believe that the NIE on Iran is wrong and refuse to believe otherwise.

Don't bother the self-righteous, the arrogant, and the politically religious with facts!

This is so excruciatingly similar to what we've experienced the past seven years: faith-based politics - our beliefs trump all else and we refuse to listen to anything that might contradict them.

This is also why the country can't survive an Obama presidency - it will simply be a repeat of the last seven years, only with a left-twist.

TexModDem wrote on January 15, 2008 2:27 PM:

I refuse to believe that Obama is a uniter and not a divider (where have we heard that before!), will bring people together instead of dividing them (where have we heard that before!), will be a Washington outsider who will change the way our government works in a positive fashion (where have we heard that before!), but I can believe that he is someone who can't be bothered with anything he and his supporters don't already believe as a matter of faith (where have we heard that before!).

Belief is Truth!

I heard it from Michael A!

BTW, if it walks like misogyny and quacks like misogyny then it probably is misogyny.

TexModDem wrote on January 15, 2008 2:29 PM:

Michael A: "Sorry."

Clearly you are not, at least using the most common meaning of that term and your clearly intended meaning.

On the other hand, you are "sorry" in another way.

Michael A wrote on January 15, 2008 2:31 PM:

It's too funny, clinton people always complain about tone and then you get the clinton people like texmoddem that foment that tone. Way too funny. So I guess all this clinton garbage that has been going on is just an Act of God or something, right?

By the way what in any of my posts indicates misogyny? Just because I don't believe the bullsh*t, doesn't make me a mysogynist. Is that the word of the day from hillaryis44.org?

TexModDem wrote on January 15, 2008 2:32 PM:

Michael A: "If they are such die hard supporters that they are willing to spend the tens of thousands of dollars to file a lawsuit and prosecute the lawsuit, they clearly would not want to do anything to harm clinton's campaign, so they would get the ok first."

So, now you are an expert in how much lawsuits cost!

Better return to law school and actually learn something.

BTW, it is pretty wasteful to file a lawsuit to make sure you get the same voting opportunities as others.

I guess the NAACP should just close up it's tent when it comes to battling voter discrimination, because why would anyone spend "tens of thousands of dollars" fighting such things?

grover_rover wrote on January 15, 2008 2:35 PM:

I agree with Michael A, they can play the plausible deniability game all they want, but when high level decisions like this are made, you can be fairly certain that it has been signed off on by the top. When little things like volunteers being overzealous go wrong, okay, I'll let that slide as long as it doesn't develop into a pattern, but campaign supporters are kept in close control in general, and they are coached and screened by the campaigns before they go ahead and say or do anything. Something of this scale was almost undoubtedly approved (if not designed) by the Clinton campaign. The fact that her campaign refuses to condemn it just adds to the likelihood that it was their idea in the first place.

Not to mention, that for the vast majority of this campaign the media repeatedly commented on how the Clintons had perfect control over all aspects of their campaign, no missteps, no surprises, no leaks, no anything without it being part of the plan. So when they start having a pattern of racially insensitive comments ("oops") dropping from their campaign like crap from a rabbit on a 100% fiber diet I start to get suspicious because I'm no fool, I know how the Clintons operate. The same goes for this, it isn't their MO to not know things, to be surprised by things, especially things that initially would have been of huge benefit to them. So I think there is more than enough cause to seriously suspect, or even assume, that the Clintons were at the heart of all this.

maraschion wrote on January 15, 2008 2:36 PM:

TextModDem - you ignore the simple fact that all candidates agreed to the voting arrangements in Nevada, which are, moreover, open to everyone. This enhances potential voter turnout, and certainly does not limit it. Trying to claim otherwise is simply false. If you really are a Democrat, remember that truth, integrity and openmindedness are core Democratic values. Not of all us are willing to follow Hillary and Bill down the road of perjury, adultery, triangulation and corruption. These contemptible evasions and manipulations by the Hillary campaign have lost her the presidential election, and may well have lost her the nomination as well. How many progressives will turn out for the race-baiting, vote suppressing, any-lie-will-do-today Hillary campaign? You know the answer already.

Michael A wrote on January 15, 2008 2:41 PM:

So, now you are an expert in how much lawsuits cost!

Actually, I am and I do bozo.

eric wrote on January 15, 2008 2:46 PM:

Michael A sure does know a lot about the way Clinton coordinates her campaign with her supporters.

Of course the campaigns choreograph everything, such as the clintons are doing with their "supporters."

I wonder if the Obama coordinates with Michael A? Can we take whatever Michael A says as the words of Obama? Should we?

TylerW wrote on January 15, 2008 2:46 PM:

As a Nevada Resident (and a caucus goer), the actions of the Clinton camp are shameful. One day she complains about the validity of the caucus because they limit participation. The next day she sues to get rid of the strip locations. Just another example of the do anything, say anything style of Clinton politics.
Personally, I am tired of all the double talk. Do we really want another president steeped in controversy?

foxx wrote on January 15, 2008 2:51 PM:

In New Mexico, we can caucus via absentee ballot. Surely that is the answer to the problem?

Caucus sites in brothels are very much to the point. Would prostitutes, trapped in brothels, go for Hillary? IF in fact the union members are going for Obama, then these work sites do give him an unfair advantage.

Also to the point, it is the union leadership, not the members, who endorsed Obama. And the union members will be publicly stating their preference in the presence of their union bosses. This is a situation ripe for coercion and should not be allowed.

maraschion wrote on January 15, 2008 2:52 PM:

EricA - your response is pretty childish. Hillary Clinton had the chance to denounce the lawsuit, and played the "I really don't know" game. Sorry, but that's as credible as an adultery denial by Bill Clinton. She could have expressed regret about the suit, could have denounced it - and refused to take any stand whatsoever. That's a tacit agreement with the suit, which is, moreover, being brought by known Clinton supporters. Michael A is using basic logic here. Nothing very complex - unless you don't want to look at the evidence.

Michael A wrote on January 15, 2008 2:53 PM:

No, and no, and no. I have nothing to do with the obama campaign. I was referring to people going on tv which was evident from the post, not posting comments on a blog, even though there have been quite a few clinton campaign staffers posting on this site.

By the way eric, can you name for me one program or legislative act that clinton promoted and got passed for the good of the american people? She is a change agent. She has been working for change for 35 years, so what has she accomplished?

Carl wrote on January 15, 2008 2:58 PM:

Totally agree with you, Michael. This has been a one-way slug fest, baiting, and when it did not work (the O campaign never went further than a list of all the "surrogates", incl. surrogate-cum-attack-dog-in-chief Bill snides!), they just claimed it worked! And keep repeating it enough and the media picks it up, and now a large numbers of voters see it as a sad "she said-he said")! This is NOT what happened!

eric wrote on January 15, 2008 2:58 PM:

foxx wrote on January 15, 2008 2:51 PM:
* * *
Also to the point, it is the union leadership, not the members, who endorsed Obama. And the union members will be publicly stating their preference in the presence of their union bosses. This is a situation ripe for coercion and should not be allowed.

Corruption in Vegas? ;)

Seriously, I do agree with this point. Caucuses are supposed to be places where you gather with people who live in your neighborhood to discuss politics an policy. Going with your coworkers to a union sanctioned caucus place where your presidential selection will not be secret doesn't sound like a very good idea at all. I certainly wouldn't want my boss to listen to what I really feel about politics. I would be fired.

If they really wanted caucuses, this isn't the way to do it. If they want lots of participation from people that work, they should just have a primary. At least the ballot would be secret.

TexModDem wrote on January 15, 2008 2:58 PM:

Obama refused to criticize Kerry and Edwards (men) for their stance on the war but came down like a ton of bricks on Clinton (woman).

That pretty much speaks for itself.

Michael A: "It's too funny, clinton people always complain about tone and then you get the clinton people like texmoddem that foment that tone."

Clinton and her supporters are not positioning themselves as holier-than-thou like Obama and his supporters are, so they have every right to point out the hypocrisy of Obamaites without being hypocritical themselves.

I know that's a little out of your intellectual league but that's about as simple as it can be explained.

maraschion wrote on January 15, 2008 2:59 PM:

Michael A - surely by now you know that Hillary's first and greatest achievement was to be inspired by Martin Luther King? And that's a fact that is confirmed by the Great Clinton Resume Book of Fun and Laughter for the Grateful Masses.

TexModDem wrote on January 15, 2008 3:00 PM:

Michael A: "By the way eric, can you name for me one program or legislative act that clinton promoted and got passed for the good of the american people?"

Back on this again, despite the dozens of times this info has been provided, but than as you most clearly say "[you] refuse to believe otherwise."

TexModDem wrote on January 15, 2008 3:01 PM:

Denial is a powerful drug and Obama supporters are heavy users.

grover_rover wrote on January 15, 2008 3:03 PM:

foxx, your problem is with the caucus system, not Obama or any edge he may or may not get from this.

Regardless of the democratic or undemocratic the caucus system is, increasing the accessibility of voting locations is a good thing. These plans were drafted in May with this in mind, and everyone agreed then. The reason these extra locations were added is because it is the most densely populated area in NV, and there are more workers in that area than in any other area of similar size in NV, so it is obvious that there need to be more caucus sites to account for more people, the alternative would be for people to not be able to vote because they either don't have a caucus site nearby, or can't fit in the room because it is over capacity due to not enough sites being opened. This is about democracy and allowing people to vote, not about advantage.

You mention the absentee ballot, this can be used both ways, because people who don't work on the strip yet aren't able to make it to a caucus site for whatever reason can absentee vote, so using your own excuses there is no reason for the lawsuit. It makes far more sense to give a lot of people easier access to voting than to make everyone vote absentee just because everyone doesn't have a caucus site near their work.

Also, the caucus sites are not in brothels, they are located in each of the major casinos.

Anyway, a little less whining and stretching for excuses to justify trying to disenfranchise voters, and a little more researching and critical thinking. That is my advice to you.

maraschion wrote on January 15, 2008 3:04 PM:

TexModDem - yes, you are right - we deny you your lies, slanders, racism, voter suppression. Sometimes tough love is the only way to deal with addictions of the sort you parade before us.

whowouldjesusbomb? wrote on January 15, 2008 3:06 PM:

TexModDem, quit talking out your ass, you are an embarrassment to yourself and others in the same party as you.

Mark C. Eades wrote on January 15, 2008 3:07 PM:

The lawsuit filed by Clinton allies in Nevada against planned "at-large" caucusing Jan. 19 on the Las Vegas Strip is beginning to look a lot like voter suppression. As we know, the plan was drawn up and approved unanimously early last year by the Nevada Democratic Party leadership, with input from the presidential campaigns, to enable caucusing by Strip workers unable to leave work to caucus in their home precincts. Indeed the plan's creators include several of those who are now plaintiffs against it. What changed their minds? Barack Obama's endorsement Jan.9 by the 60,000-member Las Vegas Culinary Workers' Union changed their minds. When the plan was approved, Hillary Clinton was presumed to be the "inevitable" Democratic frontrunner. Iowa changed all that, and Obama's subsequent endorsement by the culinary workers has brought a Clinton win in Nevada into serious question. Since it is largely members of this union who would be caucusing in the casinos, the plan is clearly no longer in Clinton's best interests. Hence the lawsuit against the plan, filed just two days after the Obama endorsement and scarcely a week before the caucus by Clinton allies from the leadership of the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), on the grounds that it would be unfair to workers in other areas. Why didn't they think it was unfair earlier? After all, the plan was approved nearly a year ago in the very name of fairness, to enable participation by those who would otherwise be unable to caucus. The answer is simple: Because the lawsuit has nothing whatsoever to do with fairness, and everything to do with stacking the deck in favor of Hillary Clinton. The Clintons themselves are not official parties to the suit, but both Hillary and Bill Clinton have spoken in support of it despite the fact that their campaign and others were included in the at-large caucus plan from its inception. They, like their friends in the NSEA, have had more than ample time to consider and reconsider the plan, but appear to have deemed it unfair only since the culinary workers endorsed Obama. While the judge in this case obviously has every reason in the world to throw it out of court, I don't expect that even if it prevails the culinary workers will allow it to prevent their members' caucusing. In fact I wouldn't be at all surprised to see chartered buses from the union shuttling members between the Strip and their home precincts to caucus, a lot of pressure on Strip employers to comply, and a lot of anger at the Clintons and their allies for this seedy attempt to change the rules at the last minute. The whole affair seems likely indeed to do the Clintons far more harm than good in Nevada; and as we know, what happens in Vegas doesn't always stay in Vegas.

Carl wrote on January 15, 2008 3:09 PM:

In Iowa, the HRC campaign tried to keep the students out. In NH, they sent patently false mailers regarding O's record on choice (100% positive from NARAL - the rebuttal from NARAL came too late), in Nevada, they try to stop people from attending a caucus (where they work! Unlike teachers, the culinary workers do work Sat. night)... Shaheen, Cuomo, Johnson, Kerrey... the are lining up and chipping away. The facts do show a pattern, and it is that they will stop at absolutely nothing, no matter what the cost the the party. "Get over it", the HRC campaign stated (really!). Again, we deserve better than this - it's always about the Clintons, and it's never "their fault", always a conspiracy out to get them... Enough already, please!

Michael A wrote on January 15, 2008 3:16 PM:

Sorry, tex I have never once been provided an answer to my question that's why I keep asking and have been asking for over 4 months. Same old bull. Maybe in tonight's debate, she might get asked and maybe we will finally get an answer, but I doubt it.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 15, 2008 3:18 PM:

So, if Obama by not being a party to the lawsuit and not having asked for these alternate voting locations is not involved, then why is Clinton who is also not a party to the lawsuit and is not involved in denying these alternative voting locations?

As usual, Obama supporters impose double standards.

What double standards? Go back and re-read my posts on this thread. I have been painfully careful to distinguish between what Sen Clinton does and what Clinton supporters do. Neither Clinton nor Obama are parties to this suit and I have never said anything to suggest that Sen Clinton is a party to it.

eric wrote on January 15, 2008 3:19 PM:

whowouldjesusbomb? wrote on January 15, 2008 3:06 PM:
TexModDem, quit talking out your ass, you are an embarrassment to yourself and others in the same party as you.

I wonder if this comment was coordinated or choreographed by the Obama campign?

Seriously, Obama supporters - many of your comments here and elsewhere are reflecting very poorly on you and your candidate.

whowouldjesusbomb? wrote on January 15, 2008 3:28 PM:

eric, that doesn't make TexModDem any less of a disgrace to the Democratic party and to the evolutionary process that granted us the cognitive ability to form complex thoughts. At least we occupy the realm of reason and fact, as opposed to the land of opposites, where everything is exactly what it is not. Seriously, the fact that he/she could take this story, and come back with: "Shame, shame, shame on Obama and his supporters for engaging in voter suppression efforts by denying other voters the same opportunity as his own supporters." or blatantly ignorant comments like: "Obama refused to criticize Kerry and Edwards (men) for their stance on the war but came down like a ton of bricks on Clinton (woman).", how do you even have a rational conversation with someone so painfully ignorant (or disingenuous)?? Even basic common sense and facts are far beyond his/her capabilities...so I'm sorry if "quit talking out your ass" isn't the most polished response, but anything more complex would no doubt be very hard for TexModDem to understand and conceptualize.

I expect this kind of willful ignorance and blind support from Republicans, but coming from supposed members of our own party...I'm embarrassed to have anything to do with these people.

Josh-Quasimoto wrote on January 15, 2008 3:32 PM:

Texas-Modem- What part of the state are you from? Are you gonna wear the BUSH T-Shirt that reads "Go back to Conneticut because Texas doesnt want you!"
I am also a Texan and was born and educated here in the state where everything is Big. I was raised to value fairness and it seems only fair that with the DNC and the Nevada election committee's agreeing to the rules for the primary well before-hand that things should follow accordingly. Now we have some people who right or wrong are bringing a lawsuit against the primary? Obviously they could have brought this issue up prior to the primary rather than now. It seems to me all this is going to do is disenfranchise democrats and independents who were going to vote that way by creating controversy before the party even started. You know most people do not like controversy and would rather just have a pleasent day. I for one am hoping that as many people as possible show up for the primary. Lord knows that it is in the best interest of America for everyone to participate in their civic duty.

Mary wrote on January 15, 2008 3:51 PM:

Pass this out to whomever you know that is confused about this. It really wraps up the whole controversy in a nutshell.
From a post I read earlier:

This is how the game is played when the stakes are high: The Clinton surrogates - who have no direct links to the Hillary campaign, and are thus supposedly acting on their own - don't like the fact that the Nevada Democratic party is making it easy for unionized casino workers to participate in the Saturday caucuses. So they've sued to stop the process.
The state Democratic party has been busy setting up meeting sites at nine big casinos, so that members of the powerful Culinary Workers Union - as well as any non-union workers within a two-mile radius of the sites - can choose a candidate during their work break. That seems like a reasonable idea - so reasonable, in fact, that the Democratic National Committee overwhelmingly approved the plan last spring; and so reasonable that nary a whisper of dissent was voiced by any of the Democratic presidential candidates.
Indeed, when Hillary left Iowa last week, she lamented the fact that so many working people were unable to participate in those caucuses, due to their work schedules. As she told ABC News, "You have a limited period of time on one day to have your voices heard. That is troubling to me. You know, in a situation of a caucus, people who work during that time - they're disenfranchised."
But all of a sudden, Hillary's surrogates are now claiming that the Nevada Democratic plan violates the U.S. Constitution, and that therefore these "at large" caucus sites - which are actually intended to enfranchise more working people - should be eliminated.
I'm just wondering: Could this lawsuit, filed late Friday, have anything to do with the fact that the 60,000-member Culinary Workers Union gave its much-coveted endorsement, 48 hours earlier, to Barack Obama?
Kirsten Searer, the state party's deputy executive director, is quoted as saying that, ever since the caucus rules were OKed by the national Democrats last May, "the campaigns have been fully informed throughout the process." There hadn't been a shred of protest from the Hillary camp about the plans for casino caucus sites; nor had there been any protest from the pro-Hillary folks who have now filed the lawsuit. In fact, some of those pro-Hillary folks are members of the state party, and they participated in the March 31, 2007 meeting that OKed the plan...unanimously.
Officially, Hillary's campaign says it knows nothing about the laswuit and, as the candidate herself said this weekend, "I have no opinion on the lawsuit." So we are supposed to believe that she and her campaign have no connection whatsoever to the plaintiffs, who happen to include the Nevada State Education Association teacher's union, whose deputy executive director is a founding member of Hillary's Nevada Women's Leadership Council. And it's perhaps sheer coincidence that the law firm pushing the suit is Hillary-friendly; several senior partners have given her money, and one prominent lawyer in the firm, ex-congressman James Bilbray, has endorsed her and has been campaigning for her. (Here's Hillary, yesterday: "I don't think it's supporters of mine. There seems to be some misunderstanding about that.")
Hillary has complained for years that the 2000 post-election Florida crisis was an insult to democracy, an attempt by Republicans to disenfranchise minorities by suppressing their votes. It's hard to see how she is well served today by exposing herself to that same charge in Nevada - particularly when it is being leveled by a pro-Democratic union official whose members include large numbers of working-class Hispanics ("This is an attempt to wholesale disenfranchise people who are largely women, largely people of color, and people who do the kind of work that makes this town go").

Josh-Quasimoto wrote on January 15, 2008 3:55 PM:

Thanks MARY!

ardais wrote on January 15, 2008 4:00 PM:

The Lesson today is from the First Book of Clinton, beginning at the First Verse:

1 And Triangulation spoke to them, saying: "This is my first-born Clinton, in whom I am well pleased. 2 I have given him a tongue of brass and ears of tin, that he may serve me and adore me, all the days of his life. 3 Neither shalt thou speak against him, nor permit others to do so, for the tribe of Clinton is sacred forever. 4 Even thus shalt thou adore the Concubine, whom the King raised up, out of the Land of Arkansas." 5 And the assembly cried out mightily, praising the King Clinton, and all his works. 6 Now Triangulation spoke again: "And there shall come a day when thou seekest a true Clinton, and by these works shall ye know: by obedience to my statute, which is Triangulation made manifest before ye. 7 Nor shalt thou permit any man who is not of the tribe of Clinton to enter into the shrine which is called Voting Booth. 8 Those that shall seek to do so, let them be accursed, even unto the sands of Nevada, unto the Third Primary. 9 Thou shalt denounce them, and all men shall hail thee as persecuted, because thou lovest me and walkest in the path of my law."

KarenAp wrote on January 15, 2008 4:08 PM:

I am not sure if people are reading this correctly ... certainly when the caucus sites were created the teachers union had ample time to protest they only filed after Obama was endorsed by the culinary union. The teacher's union head is a Clinton functionary but is filing from the union not from her place in the campaign ... the whole thing is suspect not on the part of Obama but on the part of the Clinton campaign who do not want the culinary workers to vote ...
Please read the article for those blaming this on the Obama campaign ... it has nothing to do with him

willyjsimmons wrote on January 15, 2008 4:21 PM:

'the whole thing is suspect not on the part of Obama but on the part of the Clinton campaign who do not want the culinary workers to vote ...'

Do ALL the members of the union work on Saturdays?

Southpaw wrote on January 15, 2008 4:45 PM:

I agree with all the comments above about the contemptible way in which the Clinton campaign has apparently determined to sink to the depths of Rove/Bush when it comes to the politics of voter suppression. But I have just one other point to add. To me, this lawsuit is directly analogous to the race-baiting comments in one very important way: neither tactic was *ever* intended to sway voters to the Clinton camp; instead, both are being set up as scapegoats for what were sure to be otherwise-impossible-to-spin Clinton defeats in NV and SC, respectively.

That is, just like they knew the racially-tinged remarks by their supporters could only hurt them in the SC primary, they also know that this lawsuit is frivolous, has no chance of success, and can only serve to anger and mobilize shift workers on caucus day. But that was never the point. Its true purpose is to minimize what are likely to be Obama wins in NV and SC, to convince the media (or, ahem, the small handful of conglomerates who happen to own all broadcast media... not exactly a hard sell, as we know who *they* support among the Dems) that Obama won these states only because of these overblown controversies which -- on their face, at least -- only seem to indirectly involve the candidates themselves (not sure how the Bob Johnson comments can be spun that way, but nonetheless). As bad as it may look for Clinton to be in any way "associated" with the folks behind the racially insensitive comments and/or the NV at-large caucus lawsuit, and as tainted as she may be in the view of some who are convinced that these people are unquestionably acting as Clinton surrogates, she will look decidedly *worse* if she just flat out loses NV and SC on the merits. Which is something that she was indeed on course to do, and exactly why her campaign has manufactured these narratives to allow for a way to spin/minimize the defeats heading into SuperDuperTuesday.

I sincerely hope the strategy does not work, and that more than just the intellectual elite of the Democratic party is able to see through these tactics, to see both Obama and Clinton for who they really are, and to appreciate the profound difference between them when it comes to their ability to restore the public's faith in the integrity of its government. I've had a lot of lifelong Dems who remain Clinton supporters tell me this week that "I don't approve of it either, but this is just how the sausages are made." Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I simply cannot accept that. There is a better way.

maximin wrote on January 15, 2008 4:52 PM:

First off, we should recognize that these tactics have pretty definitely lost Hillary even the faint chance of winning the Presidential election, assuming she gets that far. How many progressives/liberals/minorities have been utterly repulsed by her behavior? What was her faint margin of success, against a solid 48-49% negative rating BEFORE the campaign began? How many Democrats and Independents will stay home in November, rather than reward Hillary's appalling behavior? I mean, race-baiting, voter-suppression, false claims about Obama's record on abortion rights - the list gets worse and worse. Granted, Hillary is nominally a Democrat - but how many Democratic values has she now pissed on, solely to scrape out a "win" against the most promising candidate the Democratic party has seen in 30 years? I sincerely hope that we end up with, at worst, a brokered Convention, and Obama being endorsed by Edwards. That way, we can start to get rid of the Clintons, their corrupt machine, and the stain they leave wherever they go.

eric wrote on January 15, 2008 5:14 PM:

Granted, Hillary is nominally a Democrat - but how many Democratic values has she now pissed on, solely to scrape out a "win" against the most promising candidate the Democratic party has seen in 30 years?

That way, we can start to get rid of the Clintons, their corrupt machine, and the stain they leave wherever they go.

You Obama people are really, really fanatical. Jeeeeez. One question - are you guys taught this stuff, do you find it on a wesite somewhere, is it emailed to you? Where do these caustic talking points come from? And furthermore, don't you find it ill-advised to engage in this profoundly insulting rhetoric? You don't have to like Hillary, but this nastiness is troubling. You are really alienating a lot of people.

mari wrote on January 15, 2008 5:18 PM:

The funniest part of all of this is that teachers don't even work on Saturdays, whereas casino workers and other LV strip workers do, and are actually busiest on weekends. What a pathetic attempt at crying unfair treatment. Teachers in NV should be disgusted with their union leadership.

maximin wrote on January 15, 2008 5:20 PM:

Eric, if you ever become a Democrat, you'll find that many of us don't think that adultery, perjury and sexual abuse of women made Clinton I much of a President, and we certainly don't think that race-baiting, voter-suppression, smearing opponents and generally engaging in dog-whistle politics will make much of a president out of Clinton II. I am sorry you find reality inconvenient - but you chose to live in it. If you find it fanatical of us to live by some sort of principles that involve integrity, racial equality, and promoting equal access to voting rights, then I am happy to be a fanatic. What I can't see at this point is what your core principles are, or what Hillary offers the country that Romney, McCain or Giuliani won't offer as openly Republican candidates. If you feel alienated by straight talk from lifelong Democrats, please, don't let us stop you marching off in a rage to work for the Republicans.

eric wrote on January 15, 2008 5:41 PM:

Wow. It's worse than I thought. Or, and this just ocurred to me - could it be that these rabid Obama supporters aren't really Obama supporters at all?

I know that I wouldn't post comments like this without thinking that it would reflect on my candidate. I wouldn't say, for example, "Edwards rocks and will save the Universe!" and then go on to call the other candidates all sorts of mean, insulting, nasty things. And I certainly wouldn't insult a supporter of another candidate because he or she doesn't agree with me.

Why? Well, because when it comes down to it, there will be only 1 candidate, and you don't want a bunch of people that supported the other person to hate you. As it is, I like Edwards and I would surely vote for whoever is the nominee. But the profound hatred that spews from many Obama supporters is scary. And yes, it reflects on Obama himself.

So, in conclusion, I wonder if maybe some of this vitriol isn't being planted by imitation Obama supporters? They coundn't possibly be burning all these bridges unless they meant to, right?

Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 5:41 PM:

OBAMA LOGIC-
ASKING THAT THE LAW BE FOLLOWED EQUALS VOTER SUPPRESSION

SETTING UP A CAUCUS SYSTEM TO ADVANTAGE MEMBERS OF THE MOST POWERFUL INTEREST GROUP IN A PARTY EQUALS FIGHTING AGAINST THE SPECIAL INTERESTS

UNIONS RUNNING LEGAL ADS IN IOWA IN SUPPORT OF EDWARDS EQUALS CORRUPTION, UNION ILLEGALLY GIVING THEIR MEMBERS ADVATNAGES IN THE VOTING PROCESS IN NEVADA IS PERFECTLY FINE

OBAMA AND HIS SUPPORTERS HAVE THE REPUBLICAN PLAYBOOK DOWN- IGNORE THE LAW, CALL ANYONE WHO ASKS FOR IT TO BE FOLLOWED SORE LOSERS OR CHEATERS WHEN THAT IS IN FACT WHAT YOU ARE

TexModDem wrote on January 15, 2008 5:44 PM:

Michael A: "tex I have never once been provided an answer to my question"

This is a lie no matter how many times you repeat it.

Just because you "refuse to belief" the list provided doesn't mean it hasn't been communicated to you.

maximin wrote on January 15, 2008 5:45 PM:

Eric, it seems that all you can do is try and personalize the debate, rather than putting forward a principled view, or debating facts. You have offered no real defense of Hillary's tactics, you can't show that Obama is at fault - and so you start whining that other people are being unkind to you or your candidate. This is worse than the junior high level of debate that most people are so glad to leave behind. Please, grow up a little.

eric wrote on January 15, 2008 5:46 PM:

TexModDem:

What do you think of my theory at 5:41 about the rabid Obama people?

Gabe-Las Vegas wrote on January 15, 2008 5:47 PM:

I probably would not have had a problem with this lawsuit by Clinton Supporters had they filed it months ago before the Culinary Union Endorsed Obama. But a few days before, after they endorse Hillary opponent is highly suspicious and vary similar to other "contested" elections....Shame

jasonc wrote on January 15, 2008 5:49 PM:

it's kinda fun to watch eric and texmoddem competing to be the republican troll of the day. or are they just the same horse's ass, pretending to be a couple of morons?

TexModDem wrote on January 15, 2008 5:50 PM:

"I expect this kind of willful ignorance and blind support from Republicans . . ."

This is a hoot coming as it does from someone who blindly supports Obama and engages in willful ignorance (and admits it! "I refuse to believe . . .").

LOL!

maximin wrote on January 15, 2008 5:50 PM:

jasonc wrote on January 15, 2008 5:49 PM:
it's kinda fun to watch eric and texmoddem competing to be the republican troll of the day. or are they just the same horse's ass, pretending to be a couple of morons?

Separate but equal, I suspect.

TexModDem wrote on January 15, 2008 5:51 PM:

Carl: "This has been a one-way slug fest . . ."

More denial . . . I guess Carl has forgotten the Obama campaign's xenophobic "Clinton (D-Punjab)" dirty trick!

TexModDem wrote on January 15, 2008 5:57 PM:

maximin: "If you find it fanatical of us to live by some sort of principles that involve integrity, racial equality, and promoting equal access to voting rights, then I am happy to be a fanatic."

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!

You people can't even see what caricatures you are!

"What I can't see at this point is what your core principles are, or what Hillary offers the country that Romney, McCain or Giuliani won't offer as openly Republican candidates. If you feel alienated by straight talk from lifelong Democrats, please, don't let us stop you marching off in a rage to work for the Republicans."

Just like they undermined Gore, the progressives are undermining Clinton, and just like they had their arrogant, self-righteous, bloviating hero in Nader, they now have his equivalent in Obama (only Obama never actually believed in or had a movement before deciding to run for president - at least Nader earned his progressive stripes!).

eric wrote on January 15, 2008 5:59 PM:

You can't be serious. You see, this is the point! - calling me a Republican isn't a good idea. It makes me mad because it is a personal attack and you don't even know me. People can disagree about things. People can see things differently than you do. People might support a different candidate than you. You don't have to personally insult people that don't agree with you. When Obama gets the nomination, do you really want me to think his campaign is about calling everyone that didn't previously support him a republican troll? Do you think that would be helpful?

BTW, I don't even have a position on this whole caucus lawsuit. I am just making observations about the hate and vitriol from some Obama supporters and suggesting that maybe it isn't a good idea. I am trying to HELP you.

Carl wrote on January 15, 2008 6:03 PM:

Shame, indeed! Shame on you, HRC, for the power-grab-at-all-cost, but more shame on us if we let them get away with it! Again, these caucus sites where chosen so the largest number of people could vote - isn't that what it's supposed to be all about?! This process was done in public, with input from all, and put in place months ago. Did we forget to mention that, at this point in the campaign, the "coronation' was supposed to have taken place already? So let's sue, and try to block VOTERS, in her own party? Every one is still free to vote their choice, last I looked - what about trying to make a convincing case, why you deserve their support?! So far, we've only had to listen to "the other guy is not really so great"?! Rove and Ginrich are smiling....

hello_world wrote on January 15, 2008 6:09 PM:

eric wrote on January 15, 2008 5:59 PM:

You can't be serious. You see, this is the point! - calling me a Republican isn't a good idea. It makes me mad because it is a personal attack and you don't even know me.

eric wrote on January 15, 2008 5:14 PM:

You Obama people are really, really fanatical.

eric wrote on January 15, 2008 5:41 PM:

Wow. It's worse than I thought. Or, and this just ocurred to me - could it be that these rabid Obama supporters aren't really Obama supporters at all?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

TexModDem wrote on January 15, 2008 6:16 PM:

eric: "What do you think of my theory at 5:41 about the rabid Obama people?"

Unfortunately, I think they really do support Obama and believe these things and are in inane denial that Obama and they are engaged in the same sort of triangulation and political shenanigans that every other candidate in the race is.

They are true believers, blind to anything but their faith, very much like Bush and his supporters, and Michael A has in every respect affirmed this with his statement that he "refuse[s] to believe otherwise."

That's the really sad, sad part of this whole story: this is a cult of personality campaign whose supporters have an unnaturally idealistic view of their politician and no fact or the obvious ridiculousness of their rationalizations is going to change that.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 15, 2008 6:18 PM:

I like how the fervent accolytes of the two candidates registered as Democrats but notably drawing a significant portion of their support from corpirate putocracy are arguing that their godhead might actually give a shit about allowing lowly voters a voice in the matter of choosing their Exectutive Branch representation.

If either of them gave a shit about you and me, they woulda fillibustered the Mukasey nomination and the Telecomm Immunity horseshit. Nope, this is a war of egos between to right-wing, corporate-friendly folk and it doesn't have crap to do with what is best for flesh and blood humans.

Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton destroying the Democratic Party one petty, whiny, bullshit squabble at a time.

TexModDem wrote on January 15, 2008 6:22 PM:

Carl: "Did we forget to mention that, at this point in the campaign, the "coronation' was supposed to have taken place already?"

Did we forget to mention that the idea that Clinton ran on a campaign of "inevitability" is a lie and that the only people to promote this idea have been her opponents who were desperate to tar her with overconfidence to their benefit?

Obama supporters will tell any lie about Clinton they can, just like they did with Gore, to get their progressive hero-in-waiting elected.

TPM has pretty much called Obama supporters on this by politely referring to it as "tendentious interpretation."

I call it like it is: lying.

TexModDem wrote on January 15, 2008 6:26 PM:

Obama Supporter = Unfunny Joke

Question: will Obama actually show up for the primary vote in Illinois or will he skip it like he did so many important Senate votes?

savvy wrote on January 15, 2008 6:29 PM:

Hillary wants to 'taint' any primary wins that Obama may get in NV or SC with the perception that he won based on the black or hispanic vote.

thereby those wins should not really count.

This is the same thing they did to Jesse Jackson when he ran in 82.

Jesse Jackson won SC and the mainstream discounted that win because of the heavy black vote.

Jesse also won MI because the GOP crossed over in the primary to make sure in won as a way of spiting the Democratic party.

Jesse went to the DNC with the second highest number of delegates and the only way he was acknowledged was by giving a keynote speech.

DNC was in an uproar and Tsongas said no way was Jesse going to be on the ticket.

It was real democracy at work....NOT!!

Hillary was supposed to win Iowa and NH by big margins.. this race was supposed to be over.

NV and SC were just supposed to be primaries that she proved she had the backing of minorities blacks and hispanics.

Obama though is generating record voter turnover and the Clintons do not know what to do.

Bill Clinton is now coming out against 'at large' caucus' after their good friend Harry Reid set all the ducks in a row for Hillary to have a clean sweep. It looks like Barack will benefit from all their stacking of the deck.

They are frantic and know that he can beat them. They see the nunbers and they see him winning.

They have to go negative. They have to!

And they will lose.

CalD wrote on January 15, 2008 6:33 PM:

WashintonWire adds a couple of interesting twists to this story that I did not know.

Did anyone but me assume that:

a) the Nevada State Education Association, the teacher's union suing to block the casino caucuses had endorsed Hillary Clinton?

b) arrangements similar to those in Las Vegas would have also been made for shift workers at casino hotels in Reno?

Apparently, neither of those things are true.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 15, 2008 6:48 PM:

Dear CalD,

Anyone who watched MTP on Sunday would know that point a) in your post was not true. Sen Clinton specifically denied that the Nevada teachers had endorsed her. As I said, I am still inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt until I see real evidence that she has a hand in this.

john wrote on January 15, 2008 7:13 PM:

C'mon, folks - why are you wasting your time on obvious Repugnicans trolls like TexModDem? The Pugs just want Clinton to win the nomination because she polls the worst against any of the republican nominees, whereas Obama and Edwards both handily beat any of them. So, don't waste rational argument and thought - it doesn't do anything - just call him an idiot that should get out of Mom's basement and get a job and stop trolling Dem sites.

CalD wrote on January 15, 2008 7:18 PM:

Greg D:

I did watch MTP on Sunday but I must have missed that part. I sure thought the people bringing the Nevada suit were Clinton supporters. I keep hearing it repeated over and over as though it were gospel carved in stone and never really seriously questioned it.

I am also not sure where I got the impression that on-site caucuses had also been arranged for shift workers in Reno hotels -- who are unionized, according to that article I linked to but are not part of the Vegas culinary workers union. I would almost swear I read somewhere that they were.

John Wayne wrote on January 15, 2008 7:44 PM:

It is not right to give a union such a large advantage of who gets selected. Especially since most in that union will vote how they are told. Alot can't speak english.

Believe me Obama would of filed a lawsuit if the union chose clinton.

wlng2fight wrote on January 15, 2008 7:50 PM:

Some added fuel for discussion:
According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics:
For the Las Vegas-Paradise MSA, the Leisure & Hospitality sector provides 257,600 of the 945,400 jobs in the region, or 27.2% of all of the jobs in the, way than any other sector in the area. Not surprising. But, even if you assume that only 75% of them work on or near the Strip (probably low) and that only one-third of them will be working (also probably low), that still means 64,353 people, or almost 7% of the total workforce in the Las Vegas area, will be denied their right to vote just because they have to work on a day most other industries have off.

And, that's not even counting some of the related sectors that may also have employees on or near the Strip on a Saturday, including Construction (104,400 workers total); Trade, Transportation, and Utilities (165,400 workers total); Financial Activities (50,900 workers total); and Professional and Business Services (117,100 workers total). Or, say, a number of government employees, like the good folks at Gaming Control. Most employment in Vegas revolves around the Strip in some way.

The math is hard to argue with, I think, and makes it obvious why these caucus sites are so necessary.

Oh, and as for why the Culinary Workers are so important: 60,000 members across the state, and most of them on the Strip.

Also, on a factual note: it was the NEA, not the AFT, that was behind the lawsuit. Sort of explains the appalling lack of solidarity, considering some of the NEA's leadership seems to consider the organization more of a "professional association" than a Union. Betcha they'd cross casino worker picket lines, too. Sheesh.

PS- I don't mean to disparage individual members of the Nevada EA; my mother was an NEA teacher. My critique really is aimed at the leadership. And, to underscore that point, check out what some rank-and-file members of the Nevada EA had to say here. Apparently, some of them got together and released a letter that said, in part, "We never thought our union and Senator Clinton would put politics ahead of what's right for our students, but that's exactly what they're doing." Kudos to the members of the Nevada EA who understand the concepts of solidarity and right vs. wrong - keep those calls going into your Union's leadership and remind them that someday they will have to stand for election again, too!

whowouldjesusbomb? wrote on January 15, 2008 7:51 PM:

There is no way in hell Obama would have filed a lawsuit if the situation was reversed, because unlike the Clintons, he isn't in this to win at all costs, no matter how dirty and dishonest. What a pathetic way to try to diffuse criticism of your candidate, give me a break.

I love how both Hillary and Bill are running with this, not only will they not condemn the lawsuit, they are actively defending it, as if it were indistinguishable from the rest of their campaign strategy (which it is). They will say or do anything...power at all costs..

John Wayne wrote on January 15, 2008 8:07 PM:

It is not right to give a union such a large advantage of who gets selected. Especially since most in that union will vote how they are told. Alot can't speak english.

Believe me Obama would of filed a lawsuit if the union chose clinton.

wlng2fight wrote on January 15, 2008 8:12 PM:

John, your ignorance of who is actually in the Culinary, and of how Unions work, is appalling. To educate yourself, you might want to actually, oh, visit the website. You might then note that the Union describes their membership as including a "wide range of job classifications including cocktails, bell department, kitchen workers, cooks, housekeepers, porters, and many more".

Oh, and even for the Spanish-speaking workers - I don't know how many strong-minded abuelas you've tried to intimidate into voting the way you want, but I'd love to see you try it. Seriously, you should sell tickets.

Me Body wrote on January 15, 2008 8:13 PM:

Its a crime only the Union is given a advantage in the vote. What about the rest of the non-union voters. This union thinks its special. NO WONDER NOBODY LIKES UNIONS ANY MORE

eric wrote on January 15, 2008 10:07 PM:

TexModDem wrote on January 15, 2008 6:16 PM: eric: "What do you think of my theory at 5:41 about the rabid Obama people?"

Unfortunately, I think they really do support Obama and believe these things and are in inane denial that Obama and they are engaged in the same sort of triangulation and political shenanigans that every other candidate in the race is.

They are true believers, blind to anything but their faith, very much like Bush and his supporters, and Michael A has in every respect affirmed this with his statement that he "refuse[s] to believe otherwise."

That's the really sad, sad part of this whole story: this is a cult of personality campaign whose supporters have an unnaturally idealistic view of their politician and no fact or the obvious ridiculousness of their rationalizations is going to change that.

Thanks for the insight. I really don't want to insult anyone. But I do think that we have some very politically inexperienced people here. It isn't good/evil or black/white. Opponents aren't enemies. This isn't war, a pep rally, or a sporting event. It's politics.

Back when I was in college, I supported someone other than Clinton in 92. I was very ideological. I didn't like Clinton because I thought he was liberal enough and after 8 years of Reagan and 4 years of Bush, I thought that it was time for DRASTIC CHANGE. I supported Tom Harkin. He was the most liberal candidate in the race.

However, when it became apparent that Clinton would be the nominee, I supported him. I probably said some unfair things about Clinton before that, and that was a mistake. When it comes down to it, it is about winning. And while it is true Clinton wasn't ideal, he was the best Democrat and we won.

I want to win. I want the best candidate. I just do not think it is wise to alienate everyone who doesn't think that YOUR candidate is that one.

Richard Austin wrote on January 16, 2008 1:25 PM:

Those complaining about the special caucus sites are saying what? "If I can't have something, neither should you"?

Instead of disenfranching voters let's do all we can to bring them into the process! Disenfranchisement is the GOP way of doing things. Waht? Are there GOP-lites in the house?

Caucus plans were agreed to long ago. Now some people are whining and objecting to what they already agreed to?

Bass ackwards folks!

P.S. The proponents of limiting access are right on message. They grinned and guffawed when NBC refused to allow Kucinich in the "debate". What's the deal? Democracy is a fine concept as long as its your brand of democracy?

mike wrote on January 17, 2008 3:09 PM:

TexModDem won't answer this from Angry Vet:

"I guess it's settled then:

1. Opening at-large caucus sites on the Strip does not make it harder for people to vote.
2. All parties agreed to the caucus plan last March.
3. This lawsuit did not appear until after the Culinary Workers endorsed Obama."

What's your answer TexModDem? All the rest of this is b.s.

Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 3:10 PM:

Barack Obama has NOTHING to do with the Culinary Unions' voter initimidation efforts.

SMH wrote on January 17, 2008 3:51 PM:

Look at Billary in its male form blow his stack over the lawsuit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uthdea6X2PE

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)