Nevada Teachers' Union Sues To Stop Workers Caucusing On Las Vegas Strip
The Nevada caucuses are a week away, and the state teachers' union has decided to throw a monkey-wrench into the legalities of the process. The Nevada State Education Association has filed suit against the state Democratic Party, on the grounds that the nine at-large caucus locations set up on the Las Vegas Strip make it too easy for workers there to caucus, while no similar accommodations have been made for other Nevadans.
Those workers, if they can come out and caucus, are expected to vote heavily for Barack Obama, who won the Culinary Workers Union endorsement this past Wednesday.
"This has been a fully transparent process," state Democratic party spokeswoman Kirsten Searer told the Las Vegas Sun. "These rules have been approved by the Democratic National Committee and the campaigns have been fully informed throughout this process, which started in May."
Comments (198)
Publicus wrote on January 12, 2008 5:30 PM:Interesting that you did not note that the leaders of the Teacher's Union have publicly endorsed Senator Clinton. I'm sure it's just a coincidence, but still I think it bears noting.
Anonymous wrote on January 12, 2008 5:32 PM:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/us/politics/12nevada.html
Joshua the Teacher wrote on January 12, 2008 5:32 PM:As an educator, I am embarassed that a teacher's union would pursue Republican tactics to suppress one particular union's vote. If they are successful, it will lead to many minorities not being able to be involved in the caucuses because they have to work irregular hours in casinos.
I applaud the Dem. party in Nevada for trying to include as many people as possible in the nominating process.
I know some teacher's unions are out to get Obama because they stand against him on merit pay. Fine, but then run issue ads through a 527 instead of trying to suppress votes like a Bushie.
freaktown wrote on January 12, 2008 5:34 PM:NSEA director endorses hillary and then they just happen to sue to disenfrachise the union that endorsed obama. Coincidence? I don't think so.
It looks like the Clinton campaign is following the strategy it followed in Iowa of trying to disenfranchise additional voters. In Iowa, it was college students; in Nevada, it's these union workers.
freaktown wrote on January 12, 2008 5:35 PM:oh. and i've never heard the excuse "it was TOOO easy to vote"
aren't we supposed to want as many people as possible to participate in the process???
Duane wrote on January 12, 2008 5:35 PM:Thanks for posting this, Eric. Very interesting how even though this has been approved by the Nevada State Democratic Party and known about by all Democrats in Nevada since LAST MAY, the lawsuit didn't get filed from Hillary's supporters until last night.
Wonder why that is?
First it was college students in Iowa, and now it's casino employees in Las Vegas.
Why would any Democrats be actively working to suppress turnout in an election year?
Jenna L wrote on January 12, 2008 5:37 PM:This is a truly disgusting new development...
The Culinary Workers Union requested these extra caucus locations many months ago. And they were also approved many months ago. Why didn't the teacher's union object to this supposed injustice THEN? No, they wait until the Culinary workers Union has endorsed Obama.... would this still be an injustice if they had endorsed Clinton instead???
This is how Clinton supporters aim to win. By smearing and strategic disenfranchising. Just pathetic.
Its about the future stupid wrote on January 12, 2008 5:38 PM:What a joke, i bet if the culinary workers endorsed clinton there would have been no problem. This whole process started in may why did they wait till now, in the same breath i bet a lot of elections are held at public schools where the teachers work, i don't here any complaining there.
FlyOnTheWall wrote on January 12, 2008 5:42 PM:First, Hillary denegrates the caucus process, claiming that - among others - those who have to work at times the caucuses are scheduled are disenfranchised. Then she has her surrogates file suit to block the participation of those who work during Nevada's caucuses.
Not, perhaps, the cleverest move. Clearly, some strategist felt that the fact it was being done at arm's length minimized the risks of blowback, and that it was worth the risk if it could deliver Nevada. But if the teachers win the lawsuit, this becomes the story - that Hillary won by preventing ordinary folks from voting. If she loses, then Hispanics are still going to carry a grudge over this.
Sometimes, strategists are so pleased with their own cleverness they miss the big picture.
Matt A wrote on January 12, 2008 5:44 PM:There is a bigger issue here which is that caucuses are not democratic. Caucuses exclude participants and force people to vote in the open. Elections are a much better system; polls open long hours so people can come when it is convenient, the vote is secret, and there are options for absentee. We're selecting presidential candidates based on who can wih the silly game called caucusing. We can do better.
freaktown wrote on January 12, 2008 5:47 PM:"Caucuses exclude participants."
Maybe. But Not as many as Hillary will if he she has her way
stays in vegas? wrote on January 12, 2008 5:48 PM:Here's the lawsuit.........
teaherssue
Does Clinton have enough influence with the supporters of hers that are behind this to get them to stop trying to disenfranchise workers? Or is this part of a patter that we saw in Iowa when she tried to get eligible student voters not to participate?
brad wrote on January 12, 2008 5:53 PM:Matt,
I don't know if you have a valid argument on the merits of caucuses v. primaries or not.
What I do know is that this is dirty pool by the Clinton campaign, pure and simple. These tactics are no different than BushCo in Florida circa 2000.
NoVa Dem wrote on January 12, 2008 5:53 PM:I am just furious about this! On three occasions, I have participated in Voter Protection activities on behalf of the Democratic Party, to ensure that every voter who is eligible to vote has the opportunity to vote. Now this?! I hope Tim Russert asks Sen. Clinton her opinion of the State Education Association's suit. And I agree with Matt A. -- time to end the caucus system and have proper secret-ballot elections, including Absentee Ballots for those who are infirm, or have to work or be out of town.
grover_rover wrote on January 12, 2008 5:59 PM:Yeah, apparently the Democratic party has a big problem with letting voters vote, or at least the Clintons seem to think so...gotta hate that whole democratic process huh...I guess it would have been better if we just could have assumed she was inevitable and just skipped putting it to a vote all together.
And yeah, why did you forget to mention the obvious connections to the Clinton campaign?
whowouldjesusbomb? wrote on January 12, 2008 6:05 PM:Wow, what a coincidence, they didn't have a problem with it until Obama got the culinary workers union endorsement, and now they want to make it harder for everyone that works on the strip to vote. Somehow I think if Clinton would have landed that endorsement they wouldn't be suing.
And there isn't much reason to setup similar locations in other parts of Nevada because no other location in Nevada has as many people. If there was another location with a very concentrated number of voters I'm sure they would have put extra caucus sites there as well. Perhaps they would have rather kicked people out of causes because the rooms were above capacity...because thats great for democracy!
First students in Iowa, and now this...Hillary and her supporters are beyond despicable.
Susan wrote on January 12, 2008 6:06 PM:Question:
Can registered Dems who are not members of the Culinary union, but who live or work near the Strip, participate in the at-large caucuses? or are they for Culinary Union members only?
kristenb wrote on January 12, 2008 6:08 PM:When are Clinton supporters going to realize how dirty her tactics are?? They back her in every controversy and spread lies about Obama, but at what point are they finally going to notice what is going on?? This is just ANOTHER example of how dirty they have been this entire time!!
Duane wrote on January 12, 2008 6:10 PM:Fascinating silence from the Hillary shills in the threads. If this because they don't work weekends or because the Hillary campaign hasn't yet communicated to them exactly how to justify this?
NoVa Dem wrote on January 12, 2008 6:15 PM:Susan,
Maybe this will answer your question: "The 'At-Large Precincts' were designed based upon having '4,000 or more shift workers per site who could not otherwise take the time off to go to their home precincts'".
So you don't have to be a Culinary Union member, but you have to be a shift worker - assigned to work during the specific time the caucuses are scheduled to be held - in one of the nine Las Vegas Strip hotels (Bellagio, Luxor, Mirage, Rio, Caesar's Palace, Paris, Flamingo, Wynn, and New York, New York).
Andrew wrote on January 12, 2008 6:16 PM:What a joke.
This is a pathetically transparent ploy to help Clinton. It would be hilarious were it not so despicable. "Too easy for voters to caucus" - God forbid!
Cy Guy wrote on January 12, 2008 6:18 PM:I would think that having the Caucuses on a Saturday was already a pretty major accommodation for the teacher's union. Unlike teachers (note: my wife is a an NEA member), culinary workers and bartenders (and other workers on the strip) usually have to work on Saturday.
Also, as to the location, the entire public transportation sector in LV is set up to get people - both workers and tourists - to and from the strip. They could have all the caucuses at public school buildings scattered around town, but unless you expect people that don't own cars to take cabs, I don't how you are going to get everyone to the the caucus sites.
CMC wrote on January 12, 2008 6:21 PM:Hillary supporters can't say anything here because even they can see this as low down and dirty.
I'm just getting sick and tired of this kind of dirty politics. If Hillary Clinton ends up being the nominee she will not only lose to John McCain but she might end up destroying the Democratic Party.
blackstar wrote on January 12, 2008 6:23 PM:pretty hilarious (and by that i mean sad) how obvious an attempt as disenfranchisement this is.
Clinton supporters wouldn't dare comment on this issue because even they, with their obvious lack of critical thinking skills, recognize this for what it is.
I just read the lawsuit (thanks staysinvegas? for the link). To participate in the at-large caucuses, you have to show your Employee ID. So yes, you have to be a member of the Culinary Union to participate.
In contrast, if you're a registered Democrat but not a Culinary Union member, and you work far from your home precinct and can't get the day off, you're out of luck. That's true even if you work on or near the Strip - if you're not a Culinary member, you'd be shut out of the at-large caucuses, and have to travel home to participate.
Also, the doors to the at-large Caucuses open earlier than regular precinct caucuses. The allocation of delegates is also skewed in a way that seems to over-represent the at-large caucuses, by treating each of them as if they were a separate county.
To me it seems the lawsuit has a lot of merit. The at-large Caucus system as put in place is kind of like (sort of maybe) requiring voters to show Voter identification cards and then making it really easy for one subgroup to get those ID cards, while doing nothing to help other individuals obtain them.
Susan wrote on January 12, 2008 6:27 PM:NoVa Dem:
my understanding is that if you're a shift worker in one of the casinos, then you are by definition a member of the culinary union. Or am I wrong?
If, for example, you work in retail in a nearby store, you're not a shift-worker. And if you're a registered Dem and 20 miles from home on a Saturday, you're out of luck.
NoVa Dem wrote on January 12, 2008 6:34 PM:Susan:
I'm no expert on this topic, but I believe Nevada is a "right-to-work" state, so you don't have to be a union member to work in one of the casinos.
blackstar wrote on January 12, 2008 6:35 PM:even if (hypothetically) the ploy to sue had a totally legitimate legal basis, the timing and circumstances can only indicate an attempt at disenfranchisement. the right time to air this complaint would have been months ago when it was enacted, not during the narrow timeline where it would hurt your candidate's opponent.
Anonymous wrote on January 12, 2008 6:36 PM:"To me it seems the lawsuit has a lot of merit."
Susan,
The lawsuit has no merit, it is the Clintons who are trying to suppress votes from the culinary workers from voting. If one really wants to vote, they have a right by federal law and I think state laws to a time off to go and vote so your argument is weak. This is again the Clintons just trying to make sure Obama loses Nevada. Would they do that if she has gotten the endorsement from the Culinary Workers? No, I don't think so. They are really destroying our party, why is anybody supporting these individuals (the Clintons)?
Keith wrote on January 12, 2008 6:37 PM:Haven't read the full complaint, but it seems the Union's big complaint is that their members have to work at caucus sites, but can't, because they are not residing in that district, participate in the caucus. Simple answer: let them participate where they are working.
Optically, though, this suit could AND should have been brought months ago. It looks terrible for Senator Clinton even though there is no direct link between her and the parties taking the action. Add to that her comments disparaging caucuses in general and well . . . it just doesn't look good.
NM wrote on January 12, 2008 6:38 PM:Susan you're wrong on this. Having to show your employee ID does not mean that you are a member of the Culinary Union, it means that you are an employee of the hotel.
Perhaps they should change the rule to allow more people to participate in the at-large caucuses, but there is little justification for the suit. The teachers union is complaining that they have made it too easy for the culinary union members to vote. Perhaps they should hold the caucuses between 1 pm and 4 pm on a monday so that it is equally difficult for everyone to vote.
Of course that might unfairly favor the unemployed.
Susan wrote on January 12, 2008 6:38 PM:NoVa Dem,
Thanks. I re-read the section on caucus participation, and it's unclear to me who is and isn't included (mainly because I don't know who the term "shift-worker" applies to). Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
jeanba wrote on January 12, 2008 6:39 PM:Susan,
If one wants to vote, they can by federal and state laws get time off to go and vote, so your argument about the lawsuit being valid is weak. The Clintons are awful, trying to do anything to destroy Barack in the same process destroy the democratic party. Why would any caring democrat support them? I don't just get it! But hey we voted for George W. Bush!
Duane wrote on January 12, 2008 6:48 PM:Susan, are you are suggesting that teacher's union folks shouldn't be allowed to caucus at locations that are being held in schools?
Josh wrote on January 12, 2008 7:10 PM:I could be wrong, but I don't think any law, state or federal, provides that an employer must give time off to caucus.
Caucuses are party functions, and, as such, aren't protected under the laws requiring employers to give employees time to vote.
Not that that means this suit has any merit.
Matt A wrote on January 12, 2008 7:14 PM:I agree that it is dirty. As poorly a democratic process as caucuses are, the rules have been known and agreed upon by all of the players for a long, long time. This is just more Clintonian politics as ususal. Take from the other side what works whether it is Obama's theme of change or the Republican tactics of voter surpression. I hope this gets the culinary workers more fired up and ready to go!
tbhull wrote on January 12, 2008 7:16 PM:Is the judge heating this a Clinton supporter or Clinton appointee if the case is in federal court. This is a political questions and the courts should stay out of it. Clinton is an establishment yesterday candidate and no different than a republican and these actions show it.
nycVIAmemphis wrote on January 12, 2008 7:32 PM:I doubt the Clinton had anything or much to do with this, but this just makes Clinton's NV supporters look bad...really bad.
Perceived voter supression only makes the perceived voter "supressor" look bad.
Advantage: Obama
grover_rover wrote on January 12, 2008 7:47 PM:Yeah, I agree with those above, the "employee ID" obviously doesn't have anything to do with the culinary union. I'm sure every worker on the strip has an ID, for obvious security reasons, they are very strict about that sort of thing in casinos. If they had to show culinary union ID's, then there would be an issue, but they don't, so it is a non-issue and a sad attempt to rationalize voter disenfranchisement by Clinton supporters. There is no way to try to paint this is a different light, it is straight dirty politics, just like their complaints in Iowa. The Clinton camp hates anything that doesn't benefit them. They want to be back in power no matter the costs. Everything they do in this campaign shows that they will stoop incredibly low, GOP low, even lower maybe, to slime Obama or get an edge. Anything for power..
DonnaG wrote on January 12, 2008 7:48 PM:Susan,
I too read the lawsuit, sort of quickly, though.
The one part of the complaint that I think has merit is the matter of potential disproportional representation, at least if true by how that matter was presented by the plaiintiffs.
The rest of the lawsuit seems a stretch.....like the nit-pick about defining 'precinct', and the idea that teachers who are working on Saturday at their school which is a caucus site, will therefore not get to caucus if they live in a different precinct [this seems to be a problem for lots of folks whether about caucusing or voting.......but I would ask those teachers if they are working that day for extra pay, or if they are forced by their schools to be there to work the caucus.......like shouldn't precinct folks be responsible for those caucuses instead of teachers?]
I cannot understand why this lawsuit was filed 8 days before the caucus instead of months ago, unless it is an intentional last minute sabotage to thwart the union workers who have backed Obama.
I looked up the judges in the pool from which would come those who might hear the case. 3 Reagan appointees, 1 Carter appointee, 2 GWB appointees, 2 Clinton appointees, and one whose path to the Circuit I could not determine.
eorse wrote on January 12, 2008 8:02 PM:Here is the rationale for Clinton attack machine going after Obama:
1. We hurt this guy. We may get some bad press. We may lose some core support. We may burn some bridges, but not all. Thus, we win.
2. We try to reach out, especially low-education women and men. HRC will wear the cross on all clothes.
3. We win the nomination.
4. In the general, we just scare voters. We talk about Supreme Court, Right Wing Conspiracy, Fox news.
5. We win.
Bottom line: The Clinton Attack Machine Axiom:
The voters will vote for us no matter what. We will win. Always. We are the Clintons.
4. In the general, we just scare voters. We talk about Supreme Court, Right Wing Conspiracy, Fox news.
Actually #4 is split the vote three ways between a Democrat, Republican and politically-ambiguous third party candidate, like in '92.
That way you don't need a majority of the vote to win - important since already 50% of the electorate won't vote for her.
tbhull wrote on January 12, 2008 8:10 PM:eorse wrote on January 12, 2008 8:02 PM:
The problem is Hillary is in bed with Murdoch and Fox New as they all continue this us v. them repub v. dem charade. Hillary, except for health care and a larger more functional brain, is GW.
DonnaG wrote on January 12, 2008 8:12 PM:Just another thought about this tying into the DLC vs the DNC factions of the dem party.
The DNC under Howard Dean, who won the chairmanship in a fierce fight with the DLCers, has focused on putting dems in contention in all 50 states......bottom up organizing compared to top down directorship by the DLC. Michigan and Florida defied the DNC and party rules about the primary calendar [and those states favor Clinton and hope to get their delegates seated in spite of breaking the rules].
I suspect the DNC was involved in helping the NV state party set up their newly early caucus, too. When I think about this, this lawsuit might be another attempt to throw a monkey wrench into the DNC/Dean folks' work product by challenging the results of the NV caucus at the time of the convention in Denver along with the challenge about seating delegates from MI and FL.
We may be seeing evidence of a simultaneous strategy to wrest back control of the party by the DLC/Clinton contingent. DLC/Clinton= top down control. DNC/Dean = bottom up control.
eorse wrote on January 12, 2008 8:13 PM:Has anyone seen Blazing Saddles? The western spoof.
There is Hadley who is telling a his hired hand:
Let us get crooks, thugs, pugs, etc. The list is amazingly long. Funny.
That is how Clintons will win the General. The Carville, etc. will say:
Let us get the pinkos, etc. each and every group. Let us scare of them all into voting for us.
The bridges they burn in primary (hurting Obama) will be re-generated back in the original form.
You have to admire the Clintons. They are the best couple on this Planet. The entire human history has no one other manipulative/power-hungry couple like this one.
Duane wrote on January 12, 2008 8:13 PM:I doubt the Clinton had anything or much to do with this
Great! Then it should be very soon that Hillary steps up and asks her supporters to stop trying to disenfranchise Democratic voters. She has a great opportunity to do so on the talk shows tomorrow morning.
eorse wrote on January 12, 2008 8:20 PM:This is the Blazing Saddles scene I am referring to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km7WD8wkb1c
Now imagine Clinton hands talking about how scare all voters in the general to vote for them (since they have already hurt Obama in the primary).
What will happen to Obama is not even close to what will happen to Romney or Huckabee. If I was in GOP, I would be very scared of the Clintons. If I was in the GOP, I would wish that McCain was the nominee.
More Clinton dirty tactics now in NH:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/12/taken_for_granite.html
tbhull wrote on January 12, 2008 8:41 PM:CK Dexter Haven wrote on January 12, 2008 8:22 PM:
The abortion issue is pure after the fact crybaby shit puddle. This happens in every election.
What is going on in Nevada is different.
Tempest wrote on January 12, 2008 8:43 PM:Looks like McCain is going to be our next President.
You'll see.
Duane wrote on January 12, 2008 8:47 PM:The abortion issue is pure after the fact crybaby shit puddle. This happens in every election.
What is going on in Nevada is different.
Bullshit. It's pretty clearly the politics of cynicism and suppression going head to head with the politics of hope and bringing in more folks.
You Hillary folks need to go form your own party without the word "Democratic" in it.
NCSteve wrote on January 12, 2008 8:59 PM:I was expecting to see at least one Hillary supporter doing some poll trolling ("Hillary Ahead in Latest Poll of Some State! See gigantic mass of numbers and over the top partisan psuedo-analysis below!"). The fact that, so far, they aren't showing up to rationalize this one, or to try to disavow it as having nothing to do with her is actually an encouraging sign to me. If you can't at least tacitly acknowledge when your candidate is in the wrong, as any candidate will be from time to time, you're not fit to vote in a democracy.
Hopefully, there wasn't a flood of Hillarite rationalizations and justifications posted during the time it took me to type this.
tbhull wrote on January 12, 2008 9:00 PM:Duane wrote on January 12, 2008 8:47 PM:
I cannot stand Hillary and will never vote for her. Edwards is my candidate, then, perhaps Obama, but never Hillary as she and her husbanmd sold out the dem party in the 90s and she, exept for health is no different than GW.
The pir in the sky by and by bullshit will get any candidate defeeated. This election day shenenigans have been around as long as elections. You can be the repubs will be up to this and much much more come November.
This is a survival of the fittest and Obama supporters better wake up to this fact and quit fucking whining. An ivory tower approach will ensure you get your ass paddled. Last minute persuasive rhetoric (perhaps even borderline duplicitous rhetoric) happens in every election, cannot be stopped and should be expected. Stopping people from voting or not counting their votes cannot be tolerated.
ava wrote on January 12, 2008 9:02 PM:There are no grounds for this lawsuit. In every state, county, and city, there differences in population density that cause a greater turnout in specific areas. As well, people often vote at a location closer to their work, rather than driving home to vote closer to home. This is a ridiculous lawsuit.
This is voter suppression. Hillary is NOT going to like the press from this.
Correction to premature post:
Duane wrote on January 12, 2008 8:47 PM:
I cannot stand Hillary and will never vote for her. Edwards is my candidate, then, perhaps Obama, but never Hillary as she and her husband sold out the dem party in the 90s and she, except for health care, is no different than GW.
This pie in the sky by and by bullshit I seem to hear from Obama supporters will get any candidate defeated. This election day shenanigans have been around as long as elections. You can bet the repubs will be up to this and much much more come November.
This is a survival of the fittest and Obama supporters better wake up to this fact and quit fucking whining. An ivory tower approach will ensure you get your ass paddled, now or later.
Last minute persuasive rhetoric (perhaps even borderline duplicitous rhetoric) happens in every election, cannot be stopped and should be expected. Stopping people from voting or not counting their votes cannot be tolerated.
Duane wrote on January 12, 2008 9:09 PM:tbhull: Duane didn't write any of that.
DonnaG wrote on January 12, 2008 9:11 PM:NCSteve,
Maybe the poll-trollers are reluctant to peek at Hillary's negatives nowadays. I cannot imagine those negatives are doing anything but increasing.
I just read the article at The Trail about the damage done to the NH democratic party in the wake of the Clinton camp dirty tricks shenanigans of the final days of their state primary.
Duane wrote on January 12, 2008 9:13 PM:The fact that, so far, they aren't showing up to rationalize this one, or to try to disavow it as having nothing to do with her is actually an encouraging sign to me.
There are lot of Hillary apologists making just such a case over on a DailyKos thread.
Again, the cognitive dissonance is practically mind-numbing. All this nasty shit just coincidentally follows Hillary around while she herself is farting rose petals.
If she wins the general, I'm going to have a bumper sticker made:
"Hillary! It's The Rest Of The World That's All Fucked Up"
CalD wrote on January 12, 2008 9:17 PM:I just read the entire lawsuit and all the commentary thereon that I could find, pro and con, and I have to conclude that there are no good guys here. Charges of disproportionate representation alleged in the lawsuit are not without merit. However Josh Marshall I think is correct that the timing smells -- they didn't just publish this plan yesterday. Hillary Clinton is correct in observing that the root problem is that caucuses are in fact an inherently undemocratic process in a post-agrarian world. However the people bringing the lawsuit that is not without merit but whose timing smells appear to be her political allies.
I wonder if it's too late to just have a damned election instead.
Duane wrote on January 12, 2008 9:22 PM:there are no good guys here
Imagine that. EVERYONE is at fault.
root problem is that caucuses are in fact an inherently undemocratic process in a post-agrarian world
We know. See my previous. I already said that with Hillary it's always the rest of the world that is all fucked up.
Josh wrote on January 12, 2008 9:36 PM:Iowa's rural precincts have been receiving disproportional representation since the caucus began there.
No one has sued, yet. Because there is no legal guarantee to one man, one vote in a party caucus. The party can decide its' nominee however it wants to.
This is voter suppression by Hillary Clinton. Plain and simple.
john mccutchen wrote on January 12, 2008 9:37 PM:Blockquote>
Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) & Ben Nelson (D-NE) endorse Obama - Jim Webb (ManlyMan-VA) next???
You won't see me on ABC Channel 7
Attended a "hanging from the rafters" CA-CD8 Precinct Capt training this morning the first of two.
The CA Obama campaign has a precinct captain covering each of the 474 precincts in CD8 and is sending 1600 volunteers to Nevada for three days Jan 16-19
There has never been a field operation like this in any California presidential primary (and probably not in any statewide race for 20 years)
How many of the tens of thousands of folks like me now working for Obama will wind up helping Hillary if she gets it?
Not many I assure you. Perhaps the most important "electability" argument is just this - there never has been a national grassroots organization like the one that Obama has built over the past year. Not even close. It is powerful but it isn't transferable
CalD wrote on January 12, 2008 9:37 PM:
Duane,
I'm glad that you apparently agree with me, in your own profane way.
Duane wrote on January 12, 2008 9:43 PM:I'm glad that you apparently agree with me, in your own profane way.
No, you agreed with me. Remember I said it first, in my own profane way.
Anonymous wrote on January 12, 2008 9:45 PM:I read this stuff (not the article, the comments) and I swear I question my loyalty to the party if these are my peers.
RJ wrote on January 12, 2008 9:46 PM:I am so glad to see that Obama supporters are so determined to get there candidate elected that they have completely lost regard for the rule of law. Not once in this thread has one person asked if the creation of these precints is in accordance with Nevada law. That should be the important question- does the law allow for this? All this talk of the political angles are beside the point. I am glad to see that just like Bush in 2000, Obama supporters don't care about the law being followed, only their candidate winning. It maybe wonderful that this helps more people vote, but that does not make it legal. If the caucus process is unfair to people who have to work, then the Nevada Democratic party should have developed a system that would help recitfy that situation for all people with that problem, not just those connected to the most powerful union. No wonder all these candidates were falling all over themselves to get this union's endorsement. They control the Nevada democratic party and set the rules to make sure their members get to vote even when no other similary situated people don't. Ignoring the law to allow more people to vote may be better than ignoring it to allow less people to vote, but following the law would be even better.
Anonymous wrote on January 12, 2008 9:47 PM:Barack Obama would be so saddened to read these comments.
Disgusted wrote on January 12, 2008 9:48 PM:I can't believe Josh and TPM are not going after Shillary for doing the same things that repubs have done in other elections. Hypocrits. Oh yeah, that's right I can believe it, since these scumbags are no different than Repub scumbags.
2 Parties 1 Cup
CalD wrote on January 12, 2008 9:51 PM:Duane,
It's obvious from your tone that you would argue with me if you could. Since you have not even attempted to dispute (only tried to denigrate in your own profane way) anything I said, my assumption has to be that you cannot.
Joshua the Teacher wrote on January 12, 2008 9:59 PM:RJ-
You're saying the timing of the lawsuit is of no significance whatsoever? That's the point here, and why so many commenters are angry.
The teacher's union has had more than 6 mos. to deal with this. 2 days after Obama gets the endorsement, they go to court? I would have been fine with the lawsuit (if it has merits), had they only filed it before, say... Jan. 3. Seriously.
Anonymous wrote on January 12, 2008 10:00 PM:The Clintons lust for power is insatiable
Duane wrote on January 12, 2008 10:02 PM:It's obvious from your tone that you would argue with me if you could. Since you have not even attempted to dispute (only tried to denigrate in your own profane way) anything I said, my assumption has to be that you cannot.
I am not arguing with you. I am simply correcting you.
We agree that in HillaryWorld, someone else is always to blame for the bad shit. Let's not get caught up in irrelevant semantics.
RJ --
As is my understanding, Nevada law doesn't have a damn thing to say about this. It isn't an election. It's a party gathering. Then can have it wherever they want. Whenever they want. Excluding whomever they want. Including whomever they want.
CalD wrote on January 12, 2008 10:23 PM:Ah, but in DuaneWorld, Hillary Clinton is responsible for all bad things. Right, Duane?
jeanba wrote on January 12, 2008 10:25 PM:I don't see any difference between the Clintons and Karl Rove, will do anything to win regardless of impact it can have on their respective parties. They (the Clintons) regard the democratic party as their own little country where they are kings and queens and none has the right to question them. Go ahead laugh at third world dictators, how are they different with the Clintons within the democratic party? What are you doing to stop them? Shame on anyone who call themselves progressives/liberals and go to support those two dictators within the democratic party.
RJ wrote on January 12, 2008 10:26 PM:Josh- You may have a point that the teachers would have been fine with the law being broken if it was in their interests, just like Obama supporters seem to have no problem with the law being broken when it is in their interests, and we know Republicans certainly have no problem with the law being broken when it is in their interests. That does not make it acceptable for the law to be broken however. That is the whole point of the rule of law. If the Nevada Democratic party is being run by this union without regard to the law then they have no grounds to complain when they are called on that corruption. I have a feeling that if the union had not endorsed anyone then this would not be an issue, but that does not entitle them to break the law if they have in fact done that. The blantant disregard for the rule of law and the right to equal treatment before the law being shown here is appalling. If the courts decide this suit has legal merit then it should be upheld. If you are upset about that then you should focus your anger on the union who was too busy playing king maker and trying to fix the election in its favor to bother following the law.
Josh wrote on January 12, 2008 10:31 PM:RJ --
You are clearly not following me.
There is no law being broken.
The Nevada Democratic Party is, in essence, a club. That club is empowered to award delegates to the national club convention to nominate someone to campaign for president.
Hypothetically, they could have Obama and Clinton play ping pong with the winner receiving delegates.
There is clearly no precedent for any kind of "one man, one vote" argument here. People in Iowa can't caucus if they work at night, if their employers won't give them that night off, etc.
I simply cannot think of a law that could possibly be broken here.
Zach wrote on January 12, 2008 10:34 PM:I searched the comments here briefly and didn't see this mentioned; sorry if it's a repeat. Right after seeing this story this morning I took a couple minutes to scan Clark County public records, Google, etc for some of the named plaintiffs in the suit. Vicky & John Birkland are members of/supporters of EmergeNevada... the local equivalent of Emily's List essentially, dedicated to electing women candidates. John Cahill is a pro-gun Dem who was elected Clark County Public Administrator in 2006. His website is pretty wonderful - http://www.johnjcahill.com/ ... uncertain if he's related to Debbie Cahill, a founder of Hillary's Nevada Women's Leadership Council. Cahill turns out to be a common name in Vegas political history. Lynn Warne heads the NSEA (which tacitly supports Clinton but more than anything has a grudge against Vegas service unions).
I can't definitively figure out who Patricia Montgomery is, but there is a Patricia & Phenix Montgomery household in Vegas, the latter of which is an ex-Wal-Mart employee who appeared in Robert Greenwald's movie.
None of this is particularly indicative of anything, I think, except for the Birkland's who are likely in Hill's camp. Like Josh said on TPM, the timing is the most suspect thing here.
RJ wrote on January 12, 2008 10:35 PM:Josh- you might want to read the lawsuit. It clealry argues that the precints were not established within Nevada law.
http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20080112_nevada_lawsuit.pdf
Read pages 5 & 6.
jeanba wrote on January 12, 2008 10:40 PM:These rules have been approved by the Democratic National Committee and the campaigns have been fully informed throughout this process, which started in May."
RJ,
Do you care to explain which law being broken? Did you even read above here what the Nevada Democratic Party said about the legality of caucusing at the strip? Please this has nothing to do with Obama or his supporters.
Josh wrote on January 12, 2008 10:43 PM:I've read it, and I'm telling you, it's meritless, and I'd be shocked if it wasn't found as such.
The states don't run the caucuses, thus, they are not subject to state election law, and any such subjection would be at the whim of the party.
For instance, 17-year-olds who will be 18 by Election Day can caucus in Iowa. It's just a common sense provision that the Iowa Democratic Party throws in. If Iowa's caucuses had to abide by Iowa election law, only those who are 18 and older would be allowed to caucus.
As I said -- and I'm not a lawyer -- I'll be shocked if this doesn't get thrown out on first hearing.
Duane wrote on January 12, 2008 10:45 PM:Ah, but in DuaneWorld, Hillary Clinton is responsible for all bad things. Right, Duane?
Give me some examples of bad things Hillary has done and I'll take 'em on a case by case basis.
We'll start with the latest: vote suppression by Hillary supporters. Easy one: if she's not responsible she should have already come out with a statement condemning it. The story is already 24 hours old.
Give me some more.
CalD wrote on January 12, 2008 10:52 PM:Zach,
I saw a Daniel Axelrod among the list of people present when the precinct plan was passed. Barack Obama’s chief political and media adviser is a Chicago consultant named David Axelrod. You don't suppose...
(Yes, I'm kidding.)
NM wrote on January 12, 2008 10:54 PM:According to ABC 4 of the people who filed the lawsuits were present when the precincts were created and didn't object. I can smell the shit all the way from the East Coast
stlounick wrote on January 12, 2008 11:07 PM:What DonnaG said...
RJ wrote on January 12, 2008 11:09 PM:Josh-
I am a teacher as well. I happen to teach government in fact, and I can tell you that parties have to hold their contests in accordance with state law. This was done to ensure the process was fair and didn't exclude people from having a say. The Nevada Democratic party can't just do whatever it wants. Are we reading the same lawsuit? It clealry states in the beginning that Nevada law requires "major political parties" to hold caucuses, and that these caucuses must be held in accordance with Nevada election code. Your argument about this being like a private club is simply not accurate.
Jeanba-
DNC approval does not make the plan legal. The DNC does not decide what is legal according to Nevada law, the courts do. You should read the lawsuit if you want to know what laws it claims are being broken. From what I can tell it has to do with precincts not being drawn based on the number of registered voters within them, delegates not being assigned proportionately, etc. I am no lawyer, and I can't say that the lawsuit is correct but the reasons why people want it dismissed here are nothing but their own personal bias. Not one legal argument has been offered. The law doesn't seem matter to them, just what is good for thier candidate and that seems wrong to me. As does the idea that precincts are being drawn specifically for the benefit of the largest union in the state.
You have to present ID that you are a shift worker. THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE NECESSARILY A MEMBER OF THE CULINARY UNION. The ID would be casino ID or Sheriff's card. The majority of private store and ice cream parlor/etc or coffee shop workers are considered casino workers because the casino owns the store and licenses the name.
It was only when Chanel and Hermes etc balked while they were building the Bellagio that exceptions were made. But then Chanel and Hermes aren't open 24 hours/day.
It was long thought that the CU was going to endorse Hillary. It was considered a done deal. I wouldn't be surprised if the Hillary Dems helped set the idea up eight months ago.
The complaint is effing unreadable. It makes no sense. The teachers complaining that they're teaching on Saturdays and can't caucus in the school they're teaching in? What schools are those? Why didn't they think of that eight months ago if that was the case?
Duane wrote on January 12, 2008 11:20 PM:RJ, if you had a principled argument, it flew out the window when Clinton supporters participated in the creation of the at-large caucus stations and then waited until they found out who the Culinary Workers union endorsed before deciding it was a bad thing, eight days before caucus and more than six months after the rule was passed.
It appears the Clinton strategy is to treat everyone as if they were fools. That might work. :)
vena wrote on January 12, 2008 11:23 PM:http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/clinton-accuses.html#comments
Hillary Accuses Obama of Misinterpreting her MLK comments, discusses the lawsuit and misquotes Obama, take a look.
CalD wrote on January 12, 2008 11:29 PM:Duane,
I've got a better idea. Why don't you give me some examples of bad things Hillary Clinton didn't do (if there is such a thing in DuaneWorld) and I'll play Duane.
tbhull wrote on January 12, 2008 11:33 PM:RJ wrote on January 12, 2008 9:46 PM:
Rule of law? You are such an ass-clown. How would you describe the rule of law's impact on the 2000 Presidential election?
Politics, even if impacting those pretenders in black robes, owns the "rule of law" in elections at the last minute.
You are delusional or expecting us to by your snake oil.
tbhull wrote on January 12, 2008 11:35 PM:Duuance,
Will you call race foul after your candidate loses the dem primary because his followers are naive and inexperienced?
CalD wrote on January 12, 2008 11:40 PM:The bars can't be closed already.
Duane wrote on January 12, 2008 11:49 PM:Will you call race foul after your candidate loses the dem primary because his followers are naive and inexperienced?
Not at all. I'm well aware of the Clinton condescension of we other-candidate supporters. I'm cognizant of the fact we are David fighting Goliath. I've been told how naive and inexperienced I am more times in the last two weeks than I count.
I'm honestly sorry as hell we hijacked your coronation. Seriously. I, like everyone else, just assumed it was all wrapped up when Hillary announced. I had planned to tune out the primary and vote in the general for the Green candidate.
But then Obama started to take off and I had a glimmer of hope we could nominate a real liberal that I could support. I could say to my kids, in America we don't have a monarchy or single-family kleptocracy. They are in their teens now and have only ever had a Bush or Clinton as President.
It's no skin off my back if Hillary winds up with the nomination. I've already stated before in these threads that I can't support dynastic succession. Obama is still relatively young and will have plenty more opportunities if he wants them.
I'd just be a little happier if we could win WITH me instead of WITHOUT me.
tbhull wrote on January 12, 2008 11:49 PM:"CalD wrote on January 12, 2008 11:40 PM:
The bars can't be closed already."
No they are still open. I saw Sidney Blumenthal there.
roo_P wrote on January 12, 2008 11:51 PM:Voter suppression is reprehensible coming from a supposedly Democratic group.
I am not sure which would be worse, though, voter suppression because you are supporting the candidate who benefits from the suppression or voter suppression JUST FOR THE HELL OF IT.
RJ wrote on January 12, 2008 11:53 PM:Duane-
The timing of the lawsuit has no bearing on its legal merits. That should be what is decisive, not anyone's political views.
While the plantiffs in this lawsuit may not have any principled ground to stand on, neither do the defendants. Writing the rules of a caucus to favor the most powerful union in the state is morally indefensible. It is my guess that when this decision was made it was under the assumption that all the major players in Nevada Demoratic Politics were going to back the same candidate, that is why they looked the other way when the rules were bent. However the Culinary workers union violated that unspoken understanding. Why do you think they waited so long to endorse someone? They knew they had stacked the system in their favor and they were hoping that there would not be enough time for the other members of the establishment to call them on their double cross. You can gripe all you want about the timing of this lawsuit, but you don't have a leg to stand on once we consider the timing of the union's endorsement. They knew exactly what was going to happen and that is why they lated so long to endorse anyone. They were hoping that there would be no time to call them on their little plot.
Duane wrote on January 12, 2008 11:53 PM:I've got a better idea. Why don't you give me some examples of bad things Hillary Clinton didn't do (if there is such a thing in DuaneWorld) and I'll play Duane.
Your way or the highway, eh? Apples don't fall too far from the tree.
Duane wrote on January 12, 2008 11:49 PM:
Then get ready for the fight. I wish you well for the Clintons will not go down without Willie Horton type tactics. I cannot stand Hillary. She is GWB, with a vagina and health care.
I like Edwards over Obama because I know more about him and he knows more about corporate corruption and how to diminish the same. Obama is young and full pf hope, but lean on experience. Obama before Clinton, but not before Edwards.
Obama supporters cannot spend time whining about Hillary's actions, for they will see the same if not more from the repubs if Obama wins the dem nomination. Whining gets dems nowhere (see 2000).
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 12:00 AM:to RJ wrote on January 12, 2008 11:53 PM:
The timing of the lawsuit has everything to do with it. Your are naive to believe otherwise. Politics rules the day at the last minute. The "rule of law" requires necessarily reasoned analysis over time.
heretic wrote on January 13, 2008 12:00 AM:All caucuses are corrupt and undemocratic processes and the national party should not allow them to influence the elections. If you must be at a caucus at a very specific time, that immediately favors those who are wealthy. Single mothers and low-income folks can't just pick up and be somewhere. It is probably the main reason Obama won in IA. His supporters tend to be wealthier (thus able to afford babysitters or miss work) or more flexible in their schedules (like college students). Caucuses are just a thinly veiled replacement for the smoky rooms where party bosses once chose candidates.
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 12:01 AM:RJ, I didn't question the legal merits of the case. I'm not qualified to do that. We all know that such matters often come down to incredibly technical details, such as the meaning of the word "is".
Heretic wrote on January 13, 2008 12:03 AM:Hey Freaktown
You are a moron. Caucuses disenfranchise far more voters than such a suit every would. Primaries typically turn out double or triple the percentages that caucuses do. I don't know enough about the details to support or oppose this suit, but caucuses are indeed an undemocratic scourge on our voting system.
RJ wrote on January 13, 2008 12:06 AM:The rule of law was completely ignored in the 2000 election. The problem was not that the law was followed, it was that it was not followed. You are falsely equating what the Supreme Court says with the rule of law. That is what made Bush v Gore so terrible- it was the very body who was responsible for upholding our law ignoring it. The problem here is that the law may very well be on the side of those filing the lawsuit. If it is ignored, then that is just as bad as 2000. You nor anyone else has defended the At-large precincts on legal grounds. The idea seems to be that we don't care what is legal, we care what gets us more votes. That is no different from the Republicans in 2000.
If Florida had followed its own law of the clear intent of the voter standard then Gore very well could have won based on overvotes from Duval County. People who both voted for Gore normally and then wrote him him later on the ballot (due to an instruction that said to vote on every page) had their ballots disqualified even though the intent on them was clear. Laws are made for a reason and following them is the best policy.
heretic wrote on January 13, 2008 12:06 AM:Sometimes I think I should stop reading this forum. It makes me want to vote republican.
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 12:07 AM:I like Edwards over Obama because I know more about him and he knows more about corporate corruption and how to diminish the same.
TBHull, I like Edwards too and I supported him in 2004. We tried to run two Democrats before who had botched the war authorization vote and it didn't work out.
I'm up for trying something new in 2008 with absolutely no animus toward the esteemed Senator from North Carolina.
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 12:10 AM:Then get ready for the fight. I wish you well for the Clintons will not go down without Willie Horton type tactics. I cannot stand Hillary. She is GWB, with a vagina and health care.
TBHull, I understand you feel passionate about this but there is absolutely no evidence that George Bush has a penis.
:)
I guess the Clinton campaign can only pull so many dirtbag tricks before even colonpowwow won't come out to defend them. Does anyone now believe the Clinton's won't do any underhanded thing they think they can get away with to get back to the White House? Cripes!
tbhull wrote on January 13, 2008 12:15 AM:RJ wrote on January 13, 2008 12:06 AM:
In 2000 the Supreme Court was not alone. Each court that considered the Florida vote in 2000 split down party lines. What I am saying is that politics dominates the "rule of law" in deciding quickly on election matters. That is why courts should not get involved in the last minute decisions, as these last minute jumbled decisions bastardize the rule of law at the Supreme Court and elsewhere. As such, Hillary supporters in Nevada like the Teacher's union should either at early or sit back and take it.
tbhull wrote on January 13, 2008 12:16 AM:Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 12:10 AM:
If you read closely you will notice that i did not say GWB has a penis.
vena wrote on January 13, 2008 12:17 AM:http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/clinton-accuses.html?cid=96919890#comment-96919890
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 12:18 AM:While the plantiffs in this lawsuit may not have any principled ground to stand on, neither do the defendants. Writing the rules of a caucus to favor the most powerful union in the state is morally indefensible. It is my guess that when this decision was made it was under the assumption that all the major players in Nevada Demoratic Politics were going to back the same candidate, that is why they looked the other way when the rules were bent. However the Culinary workers union violated that unspoken understanding. Why do you think they waited so long to endorse someone? They knew they had stacked the system in their favor and they were hoping that there would not be enough time for the other members of the establishment to call them on their double cross. You can gripe all you want about the timing of this lawsuit, but you don't have a leg to stand on once we consider the timing of the union's endorsement. They knew exactly what was going to happen and that is why they lated so long to endorse anyone. They were hoping that there would be no time to call them on their little plot.
BTW RJ, that is a fascinating analysis. Do you have any evidence this is what transpired or are you just hatching a plausible scenario?
(I don't know if you realize it or not but your scenario actually makes the Clinton folks look even worse as you indicate they were more than happy to break the law when it benefitted them.)
tbhull wrote on January 13, 2008 12:19 AM:RJ wrote on January 13, 2008 12:06 AM:
Last minute election legal fights are as stale as Hillary and her republican ideas.
tbhull wrote on January 13, 2008 12:21 AM:Calling CalD, are you still around or did the Sidney Blumenthal reference knock you out like a Jaegermeister shot? What a puss!
Eve wrote on January 13, 2008 12:24 AM:The motivation of the group who is suing may be suspect, but that is a separate issue from whether or not their suit has merit.
The caucus system is a poor way to get people to participate and it does not allow people to make their choice in private.
Having special accommodations for some caucus participants and not for others make a bad system even worse.
I believe this suit raises important issues.
roo_P wrote on January 13, 2008 12:25 AM:Heretic,
I absolutely agree that a primary is better than a caucus. Furthermore, DNC should make primaries preference voting rather than single-candidate.
However, if caucuses already suppress votes, how does suppressing even more votes help?
CalD wrote on January 13, 2008 12:29 AM:tbhull,
Didn't Blumenthal get arrested in NH on a DUI? Hope you're not writing from jail.
tbhull wrote on January 13, 2008 12:32 AM:"Eve wrote on January 13, 2008 12:24 AM:
...
I believe this suit raises important issues."
Perhaps, but no court is in a position to adequately address any such issue(s) in a week or two; therefore, the court should simply shut the fuck up.
RJ wrote on January 13, 2008 12:33 AM:Duane-
I have as much proof for my theroy as you do for your's. It is quite possible that the Teacher's Union doesn't like that its members are being denied a benefit given to others and that they are suing based on principle, not politics. None of us can prove why people are doing what they are doing. We can only speculate. My speculation is as plausible as your's is my only point.
I will agree that the Teacher's union are no better than the Obama people. But at least they are doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. That beats the Obama people who are doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason.
tbhull-
Last minute endorsements by groups who have stacked the system in their favor are as credible as Fox News
CalD wrote on January 13, 2008 12:29 AM:
Yes, but he was released on bond and is currently, between shots of tequila, trying to pick up my 18 year old cousin in Austin as I type.
tbhull wrote on January 13, 2008 12:36 AM:CalD,
You would be better remaining silent than bringing such weak ass shit as found in "CalD wrote on January 13, 2008 12:29 AM:", puss boy.
I was just reading this article in the New Statesman that I ran across while following links on the Vegas casino caucuses thing.
Whoo-ee. The title is Obama Unmasked, but I'd say Obama Excoriated might be more to the point. The good news for him is it's a British Magazine, not domestic. But it's easily the most critical piece on him that I've seen to date.
tbhull wrote on January 13, 2008 12:40 AM:RJ wrote on January 13, 2008 12:33 AM:
Hillary is as about as credible as Fox News. She is part of the self-anointed oligarchy that includes George Bush and Rupert Murdoch. It is time the maggots took over this group.
tbhull wrote on January 13, 2008 12:42 AM:CalD wrote on January 13, 2008 12:39 AM:
Does the Clinton campaign pay you time and a half for posts after midnight EST? If no, maybe you should go to the Edwards camp.
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 12:51 AM:I have as much proof for my theroy as you do for your's.
RJ, I'm not trying to knock your theory down. I'm trying to see if, as you suggest, the Clintons were actually cool with breaking the law as long as it personally benefitted them.
I'm not a Clinton fan but I wouldn't go as far as you in smearing them. I don't think there was any effort to game the system more then six months ago. I think everyone on all sides just wanted to open up the process to as many potential Democrats as possible.
I think what we're seeing now however is disgusting lowball suppression tactics by the Clinton campaign because her Inevitability Tour Bus hit a speedbump in Obama.
Either way, we can agree it's ugly behavior from the Clintons.
tbhull,
Weak-ass shit at 11:29 was undoubtedly in response to some lame-ass thing Duane said. He jumped on something I said earlier -- without ever actually arguing with it -- and I've just been messing with him ever since because I didn't feel like going out. But Duane seems to come from the I'm-rubber-and-you're-glue school of intellectual discourse, so there's been rather a lot of very weak-ass shit flying around here tonight.
Referee wrote on January 13, 2008 12:54 AM:It's a bit of a cat fight going on in here.
tbhull wrote on January 13, 2008 12:59 AM:CalD wrote on January 13, 2008 12:53 AM:
My reference had nothing to do with you answering duane. The numerous examples of weak ass shit here, including mine, are best exemplified by:
"CalD wrote on January 13, 2008 12:29 AM:
tbhull,
Didn't Blumenthal get arrested in NH on a DUI? Hope you're not writing from jail."
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 12:59 AM:Weak-ass shit at 11:29 was undoubtedly in response to some lame-ass thing Duane said. He jumped on something I said earlier -- without ever actually arguing with it -- and I've just been messing with him ever since because I didn't feel like going out. But Duane seems to come from the I'm-rubber-and-you're-glue school of intellectual discourse, so there's been rather a lot of very weak-ass shit flying around here tonight.
I apologize for being inexperienced and naive.
brewmn wrote on January 13, 2008 1:10 AM:For those of you wondering whether the Clinton campaign is behind the lawsuit, condier this from the Jake Tapper piece Josh linked to on the main site:
"But the lawsuit, filed by six Nevada Democrats and the Nevada State Education Association teachers' union -- whose deputy executive director, Debbie Cahill, is a member of Clinton’s Nevada Women’s Leadership Council...
...The lawsuit was filed by the firm Kummer, Kaempfer, Bonner, Renshaw, and Ferrario. Senior partners Michael Bonner and Christian Kaempfer have donated money to Clinton in the past, and Clinton ally and former Rep. James H. Bilbray, D-Nev., is an attorney at that firm.
...The move by the Nevada State Education Association -- NSEA president Lynn Warne is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit -- is widely seen within Nevada political circles as a hardball effort by Clinton allies to block votes from the 60,000-member Culinary Workers Union Local 226, which endorsed Obama on January 9, an hotly-contested endorsement.
...But her allies are responsible for the lawsuit and her response this evening was to say, “I know about the lawsuit that has been filed and I hope that it can be resolved by the courts and by the state party because obviously we want as many people as possible to be able to participate that is the whole idea.”
Clinton's state chairman is Rory Reid, a well-connected Clark County Commissioner whose father is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev, the latter of whom somewhat unusually declined to comment on the lawsuit filed against the state party for the caucus he has worked so hard to bring to his state."
Where there's smoke, there's usually fire, and there's a hell of a lot of Clinton smoke around the plaintiffs in this lawsuit.
CalD wrote on January 13, 2008 1:12 AM:Duane,
Apology accepted.
CalD wrote on January 13, 2008 1:14 AM:tbhull,
Well you did say you ran into ol' Sydney out in the bars. I was just expressing my hope that that didn't mean you were in jail with him.
Keith wrote on January 13, 2008 1:16 AM:So Senator Clinton is blaming the Obama campaign of distorting her comments. Fucking amazing. Unfortunately, Obama's campaign has not been repeating her comments or altering them. The media has the film and audio of her making the statement, and it's spread across the internet. But of course it's not her fault for saying what she said. Apparently it's our fault for listening.
I'm REALLY looking forward to her presidency. Really.
tbhull wrote on January 13, 2008 1:18 AM:CalD wrote on January 13, 2008 1:14 AM:
I appreciate your concern. Save it for Sydney as I think he is blowing my cousin in the men's room at a local watering hole. I hope he does not get arrested again, as Hillary needs his political acumen, come again.
Zach wrote on January 13, 2008 1:18 AM:CalD,
I get the joke (even w/out the Internet sarcasm indication clause), but it's not all that ridiculous to ask who these people are when: 1) they're named in the suit and various news articles w/out affiliation, 2) there's speculation about whether or not NSEA has a stake in this as far as supporting Hillary instead of undercutting the Culinary Union.
It's a reasonable guess that out of the few people in Clark County with these names, those active in Dem politics are likely the ones bringing this suit.
CalD wrote on January 13, 2008 1:25 AM:Zach,
No, you're right. But you've got to admit you were kind of reaching there. Anyway, who would you think is pushing this suit? I seriously doubt it was filed by the Friends of Barack Obama. They're the ones who want to stuff the ballot boxes, by way of the casino caucuses, which the teacher's union didn't seem to mind when it was assumed (or so my psychic powers tell me) that they were all on the same side... There are no good guys in this story.
CalD wrote on January 13, 2008 1:34 AM:tbhull wrote on January 13, 2008 12:42 AM:CalD wrote on January 13, 2008 12:39 AM:
Does the Clinton campaign pay you time and a half for posts after midnight EST? If no, maybe you should go to the Edwards camp.
Ain't that Obama article something? Yikes. You can almost see the smoke coming off it. I really did happen onto that while following the trail of the casino caucuses. Josh Marshall's post on the Nevada thing linked to a post on TalkLeft with a hat tip to a Taylor Marsh post that had a link to the Obama Unmasked article.
tbhull wrote on January 13, 2008 1:37 AM:CalD wrote on January 13, 2008 1:34 AM:
I'll take that as a "yes".
Keith wrote on January 13, 2008 1:44 AM:CalD:
It is something. It's all over for Obama now. And I for one am glad. Watching the Clintons lie and distort his record at every turn was making me think that they have an integrity problem and that they shouldn't be allowed near the levers of power.
But this article, whew. Just, wow. What's the word I'm looking for . . . hit piece? No, that's not right. Smear by press? Maybe, I mean it does reference facts. Wait, it looks like it was written by someone posting at Hillaryis44.com. Now evidence of wrong-doing, just speculation and innuendo.
Simply sad.
Keith wrote on January 13, 2008 1:45 AM:No evidence of wrong-doing....Damn typos.
CalD wrote on January 13, 2008 1:52 AM:LOL!
Yesss, tbhull, the minions of the evil queen are everywhere. Muah-ha-ha-ha!
I'm flattered though, really.
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 1:55 AM:RE: the smear piece
Again, I have to ask the Clinton supporters who think Obama is too corrupt or dishonest to be President to explain how they can then turn around and support the Clintons?
Please build me a case for the Clinton's honesty and trustworthiness. Show me what you are seeing.
Someone on a KOS thread said this:
"In a discursive medium, the last subject a Hillary supporter wants to talk about is Hillary."
Instead it's just dismiss, dismiss, condescend, dismiss, dismiss, smear Obama, condescend some more, dismiss, dismiss, smear Obama.. are you folks even allowed to actually talk about Hillary?
Hillary comments on the vote suppression tactics her supporters have initiated:
“I know about the lawsuit that has been filed and I hope that it can be resolved by the courts and by the state party because obviously we want as many people as possible to be able to participate that is the whole idea.”
She actually wants it to go to court and be resolved by the court. Will you Hillary supporters now acknowledge she is part of the vote suppression tactics?
It would have been quite easy for her to say she disagreed with the lawsuit.
Dear God! You don't mean to say that Clinton hopes to see a lawsuit decided by a court! What on earth is this world coming to? Whatever happened to settling disputes like gentlemen, with pistols, at 30 paces? That woman, sir, is no gentleman.
jim wrote on January 13, 2008 3:07 AM:Hilarious. I'm sure this lawsuit would have been filed had Hillary gotten the backing of the union. Nixon is smiling somewhere.
>> are you folks even allowed to actually talk about Hillary?
No, they aren't. Except what a victim she is of the liberal media and of the unhinged people out there with Hillary Derangement Syndrome. Because the only way you could not support Hillary is if you have a mental illness. Gee, has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it? Iraq War? Check. Iran next? Check. Voter suppression? Check. Race baiting? Check. Fear-mongering? Check. Is it me or is Hillary in the wrong party?
Mars wrote on January 13, 2008 3:11 AM:
Okay, ignore whatever candidate you support and pay attention to the lawsuit. Unlike a lot of the people here, I read the major complaints as two things: a) they changed the rules AFTER everyone had agreed (I mean seriously, to all reports there was unanimous agreement do you see unanimous agreement to rules that say btw casino workers get to have ten times as much representation individually as the rest of the state) and b)casino workers get to have ten times as much representation individually as the rest of the state
jim wrote on January 13, 2008 3:32 AM:In a statement, Nevada Democratic Party deputy executive director Kirsten Searer says, "We have taken unprecedented steps to include as many Nevadans as possible in this historic caucus day. The 'at-large' precincts were included to increase participation in the highest concentration of shift workers — many of whom are minorities."
Culinary union secretary-treasurer D. Taylor told the Associated Press that the plaintiffs were using "Floridian Republican tactics to suppress cooks, housekeepers, people of color and women."
Sounds like a bunch of uppity people looking for an imaginary hip black friend to me. We must stop these people from voting, by all means. Go Hillary!
Mars,
I don't believe that any thinking person was dismissing the suit out of hand as having no merit. Anyway its merits are for a court to decide. It was the timing of the thing that appears questionable on the face of it. The plan, for all its alleged faults does appear to have been in place for months now. So the question I've yet to hear a truly satisfactory answer for is, why now?
Still I suppose that if the structure of the casino caucuses is as fishy as it kind of looks, then even a right thing done for a wrong reason is still a right thing. I do think that if you did it in a way that didn't award special privileges or disproportional representation to a single group, it would be great to have caucuses in casinos and in hospitals and factories and police stations and anyplace else where people work nights and can't make it in to participate otherwise. Or better yet, have an election instead, where the polls are open all day and anyone who's willing and able can go vote and anyone who's willing and unable can vote absentee.
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 4:13 AM:So the question I've yet to hear a truly satisfactory answer for is, why now?
Not just why now, but why Clinton supporters bringing the lawsuit?
Oh, this is truly an enigma. Why would Clinton supporters file a lawsuit to stop Barack Obama supporters from caucusing in one week under rules that were established over six months ago in conjunction with Clinton supporters.
*thinking*
Hmm. Man, this is hard. It's like we're missing several important pieces of the puzzle, like who is behind this, when was it done, who stands to benefit, etc. Okay, I'm drawing a blank.
Anyone out there got anything? (I'm going to be very angry and embarassed if there is a simple reason like demon possession or body snatcher aliens or something.)
CalD wrote on January 13, 2008 5:20 AM:I was just flipping through channels on the TV and caught part of Political Capitol on Bloomberg News Channel. They had a reporter on from Nevada who said the culinary workers union was previously expected to endorse John Edwards, not Hillary Clinton, and that what's going on out there may have more to do with the union's desire to make a show of strength to the big hotels than it does with presidential campaigns. That kind of casts things in a somewhat different light.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 6:41 AM:Eric Kleefeld once again sanatizes reports that do not portray Mrs. Bill Clinton in a favorable light.
This suit was filed by Hillary supporters at the Nevada State Education Association ONLY AFTER the much larger and heavily minority Culinary Workers Union Local 226 in Nevada endorsed Mr. Obama. That endorsement was a huge blow to the Hillary campaign.
So once again Hillary shows that the Rove playbook is her Bible for this election. Doesn't she know that Republicans work to undermine minority participation in elections, not Democrats? But the Clintons are all about being divisive. Here they pit majority against minority, working class against professionals, labor union against labor union.
In Iowa, Hillary was criticizing the Caucus rules because working people could not pariticipate. Neveda tried to address that very concern. Now after losing the critical Union's endorsement, Hillary does a flip flop.
A spokesperson for Culinary Local 226, characterized the lawsuit acturately as “despicable” and “disgusting.”
“I never thought we’d have people in the Democratic Party try to disenfranchise women, people of color and large numbers of working people in this state.nI am sure every single elected official in Nevada will renounce it, and so will the Clinton campaign."
Unfortunately, Hillary's only interest is winning. She will do anything. She is dividing the Democratic party beyond repair, undermining the dmemocratic process, and damaging the goal of national unity. You can see in her dirty campaign exactly the type of president she will be, just another sleazy George W. Bush.
Make them available to all or close the ones on the strip. This is not obscure. Why on earth would it ever, ever be acceptable to make caucus sites available to a few?
RJ wrote on January 13, 2008 8:00 AM:Duane-
I am of the opinion that the Nevada Caucus is probably one of the most corrupt processes I have ever seen. Both sides in this dispute were wrong if they developed their plan without regard to the law. The difference is Obama and his people continue to be wrong, whereas at least the other side has finally decided to do the right thing. They may be doing the right thing for the wrong reason, but at least they are doing the right thing. That is more then can be said for the side you are defending.
The people defending this corrupt process are just empowering Republicans in the future to rigg elections in their favor. Remember in California where they tried (or may still be trying) to change the way California decides how its electoral votes are distributed. The argument in favor of this is that it gives more people a voice. It would also make it 100 times harder for a Democrat to win in November. It is illegal because it is being done through a ballot iniative and not through the State Legislature as the Constitution requires. However, Republicans have criticized the opposition to it because they claim it is disenfranchsing people. All of you so desperate to support Obama are opening a can of worms that has very dangerous consquences.
stlounick wrote on January 13, 2008 8:32 AM:RJ, the fact that a lawsuit is filed does not make the lawsuit of serious legal import. Perhaps you didn't know that.
You're sure flinging around a lot of things like "rigging elections" to justify this filing. Perhaps you need to calm down a bit.
moondancer wrote on January 13, 2008 9:03 AM:The toughr things get the uglier the Clinton entity looks. Rovian tactics smell of no content just ambition.
DonnaG wrote on January 13, 2008 9:11 AM:RJ ended his last [8:00am] statement with:
" All of you so desperate to support Obama are opening a can of worms that has very dangerous consquences [sic]."
RJ writes this line in a posting about Hillary supporters filing a last minute lawsuit, throwing a monkey wrench into a state caucus. The rules for said caucus were hammered out with all affected persons involved [including all candidates representives], a process which began almost a year ago and which was finalized months ago without a peep of concern.......in fact those same Hillary supporters were full members in the meeting in October at which the final plan was unanimously approved.
With all that history presented, RJ chose to write:
"All of you so desperate to support Obama are opening a can of worms that has very dangerous consquences [sic]"
But I want to draw attention to.... is this sentence in RJ's comment. Anyone else see a certain pattern repeated here? To me, it is either some sort of insanity/blind followership [like Bush die-hards, only these are Clinton die-hards] at work, or perhaps it is an intentional pattern designed to disable clear thinking [ egad, I believe RJ claimed to be a teacher somewhere upthread].
We've just come off a few days of discussions in which many folks were reacting in alarm to a string of untoward statements from Hillary surrogates and even Hillary herself, which were at the least suggestive of dissing blacks..... and what does the Hillary side respond with..... Ignoring and/or parsing all those statements to death, the illogic of the Hillary supporters, ad nauseum, is the meme "Obama is playing the race card!!!!!!!!"
Now we have what is a blatant attempt at voter suppression by Hillary backers in Nevada, and suddenly, that really huge wrong is less important than a parsing about a point of Nevada law. Remind you of Florida in 2000, anyone? But furthermore, as per RJ, it is Obama supporters who have opened this 'can of worms', just like Gore in Florida, I guess.
RJ wrote on January 13, 2008 9:58 AM:
Donna-
You might want to read the lawsuit before you try to act like you know something about it. Claiming all the parties agreed to these rules is false. The lawsuit claims that what they agreed to was changed after th fact.
You have yet to explain why this union should be allowed to make up the rules in violation of Nevada law to benefit itself. No one is entitled to break the law to help themself win an election. That is a Republican mindset and your defense of actions even if they are illegal is a sad statement on how low people have sunk.
And you need to stop with your comparisons to Gore in 2000. Gore was the one demanding the law be followed in that case. Gore was not trying to stack the favor in his deck, that is what the Republicans did in fact. The real problem in Florida is the same problem we are seeing here. Most people weren't upset that the law was followed, they were just upset that their side didn't win. If you want to make an argument about this lawsuit then you should do so on legal grounds. Try saying that what they are doing is legal, but stop trying to paint this as one side is dirty amd the other clean. Both sides are engaged in politics. The difference is one side may be doing so within the law, the other not. I honestly don't know one way or the other, but the hysteria being thrown around here make me believe that the politics of the situation will triumph over a fair reading of the law. If someone believes the law is being broken they have every right to do something to try to stop it. Rather than attack the other side why don't you try making a reasoned response to their charges.
stlounick, the fact that the lawsuit hurts Obama's chances of winning does not mean it is not of serious legal import. Perhaps you didn't know that. I actually can't say for sure how this lawsuit should be settled. I am just arguing it should be settled in a court of law and not in a court of public opinion. And from what I have seen so far the arguments presented in the suit seem a lot stronger than the vile that is being spewed against it on this thread.
The immaturity of Obama's supporters and some members of the Media is remarkable.
In Florida in 2000 Democratic lawyers were
all set to challenge absentee ballots. Then
Joe Lieberman held a press conference saying Democrats would not deny anyone the right to vote. You all remember President Gore and Vice-President Lieberman?
Lawsuits can be to stop something or designed to reach an accomodation. Perhaps other caucus sites will be found to help other Nevadans vote. Most lawsuits are settled.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 10:06 AM:Gore was not trying to stack the favor in his deck, that is what the Republicans did in fact. The real problem in Florida is the same problem we are seeing here. Most people weren't upset that the law was followed, they were just upset that their side didn't win.
This should have said: Gore was not trying to stack the deck in his favor, that is what the Republicans did in fact. The real problem in Florida is the same problem we are seeing here. Most people weren't upset that the law wasn't followed, they were just upset that their side didn't win.
tbhull wrote on January 13, 2008 10:16 AM:RJ or any other party supportin this blatant attemt at voter suppression,
Q: Can the court adequately hear and consider testimony and then make a reasoned legal decision in a week or two?
A: No, unless unless the judge is a blind Hillary supporter and proves as much by buying all the allegations/bullshit found in the complaint without hearing or considering anything else.
RJ wrote on January 13, 2008 11:05 AM:tbhull,
I am not sure we don't have enough time to make this decision. If it isn't legal then those precincts shouldn't be run and people can go to their home precincts like everyone else. No one is being kept from voting, they just aren't being given special advantages that others would not get. That being said, I wouldn't have a problem with the courts ruling there was not adequate notice to change the voting plan now either. But if the plan is illegal then they need to say so very strongly and prohibit this from being done in the future. Even if the courts agree with the merits of the suit they could reject the proposed remedy it offers. That wouldn't be so bad in my mind, but neither would them deciding the other way. I want to see the law prevail which is more important than who casts a vote where.
RJ wrote on January 13, 2008 11:05 AM:
Well put. I have no problem with a ruling that fixes future problems, however, courts should refrain from acting on a specific problem if they think they can issue a hasty rushed decision like the Supreme Court in 2000. In the long run, hasty decisions in political processes erode the standing of the judiciary, who should be detached from these processes and independent.
OT
Hillary cannot shake the Iraq war vote albatross that hangs around her neck. Why can't she simply say she was wrong like Edwards? She will never get my vote. She is GW reincarnate but smarter but not smart enough when it counts.
The context is that Hillary missed it when it counts and cannot undo it and cannot admit her mistake. This vote alone and her inability to seek redemption for her error on the biggest issue she has voted on as a Senator renders her unqualified to serve as President.
RJ wrote on January 13, 2008 11:59 AM:OT
Obama was Dennis Kucinich on the war before he was running for President, Hillary Clinton on the war after he was running. Obama may have got it when it counted, but he has certainly undone that since then. His position on the war has lined up perfectly with his political ambitions at every turn. Trust him at your own peril.
I blame one person for the war in Iraq- George W Bush. He lied us into it, he misused the authority he was given. There are a few people who are not complicit in this mess like Kucinich, but Obama is not one of them. I will gladly listen to Kucnich supporters gripe on this one, but Obama supporters need to get a grip and either vote for Kucinich or be quiet.
DonnaG wrote on January 13, 2008 12:07 PM:RJ,
you tell me to first read the lawsuit before I 'act like I know something about it'. Perhaps you should read this thread before you 'act like you know what you are talking about'. Some fourteen hours [7:48 pm] before you wrote that, I submitted a comment saying that I had read the lawsuit, and surmised,
"The one part of the complaint that I think has merit is the matter of potential disproportional representation, at least if true by how that matter was presented by the plaiintiffs."
But, after your 9:58 am comment, I re-read that lawsuit. There is proof that the plaintiffs had noted the final version [and were present to approve it, according to further accounts] in October 2007, so your saying it had since been changed [and therefore suddenly sparked a necessary lawsuit] is totally bogus.
What my second reading did find, lol, was that the facts presented by the plaintiffs are incorrect due to what must be a typo....the document says that the 'final version' is dated September of 2008 [in a footnote, still referring to being presented for final approval in October 2007] and was last reviewed on January 11, 2008.
So, any notion that the plaintiffs are dealing with a version later in time than the one they reviewed and approved in October, as you magically claim is somewhere asserted in the lawsuit, is totally false.
Maybe you should re-read it, RJ.
Donna-
If you want to argue that this suit should have been filed earlier that is fine, but to claim that those filing agreed to these precincts is not true. They agreed to a plan for selecting delegates that was approved last March. That plan has since been changed according to the lawsuit and no one seems to know the date it was last revised.(The NDP website says 1-28-08 which is obviously not right.) In October the number of precincts and delegates was chosen, that is not the same thing as the plan for selecting delegates. Furthermore, the location of those precincts which are a big part of the controversey were not decided until "recently" according to the lawsuit. This has obviously been a very complex, long, and political process. The union has been playing politics with the whole process from the beginning and it is appaling to me that they would now try to stand on some sort of principle when they are being called on their little game. They waited till the last minute to make their endorsement because they knew once they split from the rest of the party establishment that this whole thing could blow up in their face and it has. This whole things stinks of corruption and if anything should just be taken as proof why we ought to have primaries rather than caucuses where the powerful interests are able to manipulate the system to their advantage.
The unfair thing here is all union workers would probably be required to vote at their workplace by the union, not just the ones on duty. Probably using the excuse they could relieve workers and let everyone have their turn. They would have exceptional pressure on them to vote for their union's choice in a caucus vote in the workplace. This is not free vote, it's union vote. Last I heard the US elections were non-union. No place else in the US has a caucus been scheduled in a union controled workplace.
Second, if anyone believes this suit would not have been filed by someone if Hillary got the endorsement, I would like to sell them some ocean front property in Arizona.
That's just politics.
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 1:57 PM:RJ, let me see if I understand your logic.
You said earlier that Clinton supporters were okay with breaking the law when it personally benefitted them. But now that they aren't benefitting from breaking the law, they want to prevent the law from benefitting anyone else?
Just for the record, I don't agree with you that the previously agreed-upon rules break the law. But if this is what YOU think surely you can understand how cynical and sleazy it makes you and the Clintons look.
RJ wrote on January 13, 2008 3:08 PM:Duane-
I think this whole situation is an embarrassment to the Democratic party. I think it shows what a joke the whole caucus system is and why we should have primaries, not caucuses. I wish this lawsuit had been filed long before now, and I don't claim that the people doing it are not self interested. What I claim is that if they are right about the legality of the system then the courts should act on that. I would have never been in on such a scheme in the first place, my only point is that your outrage, if it not equally distributed to both sides in this affiar, is clearly nothing but partisan garbage.
You are the one who doesn't care if what is being done is legal or not. You are the one outraged that someone might actually be stopped from breaking the law, not me. You clearly take the cake for being sleazy here.
Obama should have come out and said that he wants the law to be followed, and if there are legal merits to this case then they should be acknowledged and acted upon. He should also say that he only wants to be associated with unions that act in accordance with the law, even when it may benefit them not to. I am glad to see all his talk of ethics doesn't apply to himself. Obama is obviously more concerned with himself prevailing then he is the law prevailing. Here he had an opportunity to prove he is not all talk and he clearly is more than willing to disregard his principles for political gain, even if the law has to be ignored to do it.
I am not sure what the right legal decision in this case would be. The arguments in the lawsuit itself seem a lot more persuasive to me then your biased unsubstaniated opinion that the law was not broken. From what I have read the union's defense is mostly political pleas, not legal arguments. You have made it clear you don't care about the law or ethics and it appears your candidate doesn't either. I understand that politics can be a down and dirty business, but nothing is sadder than hypocrites who scream bloody murder about things they are themselves engaged in doing. It is becoming more apparent everyday that is exactly what the Obama campaign is all about though.
Would this suit been filed if the other union had endorsed Hillary?
We are just tired of type of politics.
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 3:23 PM:You are the one who doesn't care if what is being done is legal or not. You are the one outraged that someone might actually be stopped from breaking the law, not me. You clearly take the cake for being sleazy here.
Well, of course it's me, RJ. We've already established Hillary Law: "It's the rest of the world that is all fucked up."
So even though my chosen candidate's representatives worked with Hillary's representatives and the Democractic Party of Nevada to accomodate Nevada's largest union and the resulting rules were approved by all parties, now that Hillary's supporters want to renege because she didn't get the endorsement of said largest union, well OF COURSE IT'S ME THAT IS BEING SLEAZY.
Do you think you'll be successful with this strategy of blaming everyone else for your candidate's moral failings or is it just that you don't have anything else at this point?
RJ wrote on January 13, 2008 4:13 PM:Joyce-
Would this suit have been filed if Nevada state law had been followed instead of settting up the process to favor the state's largest most powerful union? You obviously are only tired of these kind of politics when it benefits other candidates and not your own. As I have said many times now if you want to change this kind of politics you might start by being concerned more about the law being followed then you are about who is going to benefit politically from upholding the law.
Duane-
You write: Do you think you'll be successful with this strategy of blaming everyone else for your candidate's moral failings or is it just that you don't have anything else at this point?
It is obvious that you must believe that because rather then defend what your candidate is doing all you can do is trash another. This lawsuit is about if the Nevada Democratic Party followed the law or not. It is not about any particular candidate, that is just what you are trying to make it about because you have no grounds on which to defend your position.
You write: Do you think you'll be successful with this strategy of blaming everyone else for your candidate's moral failings or is it just that you don't have anything else at this point?
It is obvious that you must believe that because rather then defend what your candidate is doing all you can do is trash another. This lawsuit is about if the Nevada Democratic Party followed the law or not. It is not about any particular candidate, that is just what you are trying to make it about because you have no grounds on which to defend your position.
RJ, I can't believe what you are suggesting because I don't accept your premise that the at-large caucus stations are illegal. YOU advanced that claim when you thought up a fancy scenario that you thought would get her off the hook for these latest suppression tactics.
As usual, with the Clintons and their supporters, lying comes first and if that doesn't work, more elaborate lies follow.
If there is a maxim that can completely define the Clintonian era, it is this:
"Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive!"
What I believe - and this is so simple that I bet you can understand it - is that the rules were agreed upon by all parties involved and in place months ago and this last minute lawsuit is a last ditch effort to suppress Obama's votes and throw Nevada to Hillary.
What you believe appears to be whatever most absolves or explains away the moral failings of the Clintons.
macaddict wrote on January 13, 2008 7:12 PM:So this is the state of discourse in the Democratic Party ( with the possible exception of some non-Democrats)? I live in Las Vegas and I am following this story as best I can. It seems to me that the issue involves the Teachers Union and their actions. What should be the role of national candidates in this issue? Every candidate will be for deciding an issue in a way to favor him or her - so Obama would be in favor and Hillary would be against it. Big deal. Take any issue of this nature anywhere and the results would be the same. Both ( and all candidates) want to win and will support things that help them win. Still, I think it is best for both candidates to stay out of the issue and support the general Democratic position of making it easier for everyone to vote. I am not convinced, as many of you are, that this is an issue of voter suppression. Even though the Culinary Union supports Obama, they certainly do control the voters. People will vote for whomever they want.
My guess is that their vote will be split three ways to include Edwards. All Democrats want everyone to vote. All Democratic candidates support everyone voting and the level of uncivil discourse in this thread is over the top. Argue the issues without the hate mongering.
I'm an Obama supporter and while I'm plenty disgusted with Hillary's tactics, I'm done with complaining about them. Let's just not be surprised that the Clintonistas are trying to play hardball. Part of the game, and if Obama can't handle this, then he doesn't deserve to win.
I once looked upon the Clintons with real admiration, but they are quickly draining away what remains of their legacy. I'm hoping that this is truly their last, desparate gasp.
This recent series of events reminds me of the same shock I felt when I realized all of the ways the Repubs rigged the elections. I was outraged and angered at first, but it was just wasted energy. You think ANYONE is going to give up their power that easily? Just accept it part of the playing field and redouble your efforts accordingly. It just makes me want to work that much harder to ensure that Obama is elected to the White House.
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 8:14 PM:I'm an Obama supporter and while I'm plenty disgusted with Hillary's tactics, I'm done with complaining about them. Let's just not be surprised that the Clintonistas are trying to play hardball. Part of the game, and if Obama can't handle this, then he doesn't deserve to win.
How well did that work out for Kerry, Jeff? The Clintons are banking on real Democrats being too queasy for this quasi-Republican bullshit.
I'm not going to award them a default victory by ignoring their lies and the lies of their supporters.
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 8:24 PM:My guess is that their vote will be split three ways to include Edwards. All Democrats want everyone to vote. All Democratic candidates support everyone voting and the level of uncivil discourse in this thread is over the top. Argue the issues without the hate mongering.
It isn't hate mongering to point out this is a last minute effort by Clinton supporters to suppress Obama voters. Here's why:
1. It's a last minute effort
2. The suit was brought about by Clinton supporters.
3. What happened between six months ago (when these at-large caucus stations were agreed upon by all parties and now) is that two days ago, the Culinary Workers union endorsed Obama.
4. Hillary refused to condemn the lawsuit on MTP today and lied about the fact that her supporters are doing this.
But I'm willing to acknowledge that as always is the case with the Clintons, her supporters will continue to say "There is no fire here" as smoke pours from the campaign.
Mr Blifil wrote on January 13, 2008 9:18 PM:Is it really "voter suppression" if caucus participants have to clear hurdles to cast their vote? I mean nobody here is arguing that Republicans are being denied the right to vote in the caucus.
Also it seems to me there is the possibility of a worker "signing a promise" that they won't go anywhere else to vote later in the day, and then doing precisely that, thereby amplifying the union's influence that much more. Imagine if the spectre were raised of Clinton supporters possibly being allowed to vote in 2 polling places?
As to the timing of the lawsuit, what exactly is wrong with filing a legal challenge to gain political advantage? If the suit is meritless, no political advantage will be obtained, and if they prevail in the lawsuit, then surely there were grounds to bring it in the first place. Hillary's team is working all 50 states, just like everybody else, and it's not surprising to me that it took the Obama endorsement to get Hillary researchers studying the ramifications, and recommending action. Rest assured if the situation were reversed, Obama would be a fool not to attempt to challenge it. The idea of filing suit is no more harmful or remarkable than a football coach throwing a red flag onto the field to challenge a call. If there is merit to the complaint, then so be it. If not, it will evaporate. I don't understand what the Hillary detractors feel so threatened by. If the suit is as baseless as they claim, their view will prevail. What need for all the additional sturm und drang about "voter disenfranchisement?" Please.
greg wrote on January 13, 2008 9:19 PM:Duane,
I suggest you check out the article at Talk Left about this issue:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/1/12/133648/896
There are lots of legitimate issues here ( I live in Las Vegas) regarding the Nevada Caucuses and it would be helpful to understand these issues before blaming Hillary or her supporters for a perceived "voter suppression" drive.
I think Obama and Hillary should stay out of this local fight. As the article points out, if we just define "shift worker" to be more inclusive, the issue goes away.
As we hopefully learned in 2000 and 2004, Democrats have to understand and fight for the right to vote for everyone. I think Obama and Hillary are doing just that.
Rhodium Heart wrote on January 13, 2008 9:53 PM:This lawsuit was filed by Kummer Kaempfer, a major law firm that typically represents employers, NOT employees or unions. The law firm has partners identified with the Clinton campaign ....
Smoke. Meet fire. Pleased to make your acquaintenance.
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 10:36 PM:Mr. Blifil, is it really vote suppression? I dunno, was it really sex? It depends on the meaning of the word "suppression", I guess.
We're all sick to death of Republican hardball tactics being practiced by DLC'ers, Mr. Blifil. The Democratic party can only blossom with a candidate that energizes the party, inspires and brings in lots of new voters.
Please say no to this nonsense and help us turn the page.
As the article points out, if we just define "shift worker" to be more inclusive, the issue goes away.
You mean so the Clinton folks can pack the caucus with her known supporters instead of taking a chance that the shift workers will support Obama?
greg wrote on January 13, 2008 10:55 PM:Duane:
I mean so every person can vote. Can you all just get over all this "Clinton's are bad and Obama's are good" stuff?
No one is trying to suppress the vote. Both are trying to make it so their supporters get to the caucuses and can vote. This is a legal argument that will be settled in court.
To Rhodium Heat:
Do you have any evidence that anyone outside of Nevada asked this law firm to bring this suit? Speculation does not win an argument.
Duane wrote on January 14, 2008 12:01 AM:Greg, it's a last minute effort to hold down Obama's support. Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining.
Thanks.
BTW, Tapper had a piece on ABC's site revealing the Clinton folks that are behind this.
The voters of Florida and Michigan with 28 million people together are disenfranchised. Their votes will not count in the primaries.
Caucuses are nonsense - a truly horrid way to elect people if you want to do it fairly. Someone wants to vote for Ron Paul - "he's a wacko, come over here and vote for Huckabee". "Hayseed". "I like Giuliani." "You're an idiot". Good public scourging of people for their private beliefs, out front in front of friends, neighbors and workmates. Regarding convenience to vote, just move everyone to absentee ballots, like many states are trying to do. Most people can't vote anywhere near their work - it's a pain in the ass. Why, that imbalance favors stay-at-home Moms and old people, groups that would likely vote more for Hillary.
And while we're at it, we should get rid of single state "firsts". Four dispersed states with elections in mid-January, four more 3 weeks later, Super Tuesday 4 weeks later. Rotate states every 4 years. Why should Iowa and New Hampshire tell me who my candidate should be? I've never been to these places. They don't even have beaches, minorities or traffic jams - what do they know about the problems of real Americans?
Clayton wrote on January 14, 2008 5:19 AM:People say "well isn't it interesting that the Hillary-supporters want to change this so that the Obama supporters won't have an edge over them"?
No, its in fact, entirely uninteresting. OF COURSE the competing political factions want to have an edge over each other, or at least a level playing field.
The fact is, the Teachers Union is entirely within their rights to contest this, and their point is entirely valid. Any political motivations are, in my view, inconsequential to the fact that the Democratic Party of Nevada is giving special dispensation to some people and not others, thus giving a relative disenfranchisement to many voters, not just the teacher's union.
So forget about who wants who to win. Is the practice of giving preferential caucusing privileges to a specific subset of the population the right thing to do.
There are two questions:
*Is what the Democratic Party of Nevada is doing fair?
*Is the Teacher's Union's hopeful outcome (that is, no special accommodation for some people and not others) more fair than giving preferential convenience to a particular group?
Forget motivation, who is right?
Duane wrote on January 14, 2008 6:49 AM:Clayton, the Strip at-large caucus accomodations were made for Culinary U because Teachers U wanted to move the primary to Saturday. Saturday is the busiest day for culinary union workers.
Clinton backers brought the suit to depress Obama caucus turn out.
Duane wrote on January 14, 2008 6:55 AM:The voters of Florida and Michigan with 28 million people together are disenfranchised. Their votes will not count in the primaries.
All they had to do was hold their primaries on the agreed-upon date. Are you really not aware of this or do you not care?
Caucuses are nonsense - a truly horrid way to elect people if you want to do it fairly. Someone wants to vote for Ron Paul - "he's a wacko, come over here and vote for Huckabee". "Hayseed". "I like Giuliani." "You're an idiot". Good public scourging of people for their private beliefs, out front in front of friends, neighbors and workmates. Regarding convenience to vote, just move everyone to absentee ballots, like many states are trying to do. Most people can't vote anywhere near their work - it's a pain in the ass. Why, that imbalance favors stay-at-home Moms and old people, groups that would likely vote more for Hillary.
Representatives of the Hillary campaign for President participated in the accomodations that have been agreed-upon and in place for over six months. Are you not aware of this or do you not care?
And while we're at it, we should get rid of single state "firsts". Four dispersed states with elections in mid-January, four more 3 weeks later, Super Tuesday 4 weeks later. Rotate states every 4 years. Why should Iowa and New Hampshire tell me who my candidate should be? I've never been to these places. They don't even have beaches, minorities or traffic jams - what do they know about the problems of real Americans?
Of course you want to come up with a better plan than the current primary system to coronate Hillary now that the first plan didn't work.
Anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 7:13 AM:Duane,
>Clayton, the Strip at-large caucus >accomodations were made for Culinary U >because Teachers U wanted to move the >primary to Saturday.
I see. So we have one group trying to make the vote best for them, and another group trying to make the vote best for them.
I don't see much difference between these groups. They are both acting in their own political interest.
Why are people so interested in pointing to Hillary? Why instead are they not angry at the Nevada Democratic Party for being corrupt?
This really seems more like a conflict between two powerful unions which are major players in the Nevada Dem Party, not a conflict between Clinton and Obama.
There is NO evidence to suggest that Hillary's campaign has anything to do with this at all, only the implications that the Obama campaign made.
The ONLY reason anyone is talking about this being about Hillary (instead of being about the Nevada Democratic Party) is the Obama campaign. They are the ones who pointed at her, even though there is no evidence that she has anything to do with it.
Even Tim Russert asked her 'will you drop the suit' to my bemusement, she didn't make the suit! It has NOTHING to do with her at all.
wglad wrote on January 14, 2008 8:10 AM:How about we let the people of Nevada settle this one? The constant chatter and instant expertise around here is entertaining, but not very productive. Believe it or not, some of these issues are state and local issues. Mrs. Clinton sent a message to the teachers yesterday morning when she said she hopes this gets settled in a way that lets the most people vote. One of the more amusing moments of this campaign is Mr. Obama trying to sell wolf tickets to Mrs. Clinton by reminding her that he's from Chicago and knows how to play rough.
dhonig wrote on January 14, 2008 8:15 AM:How many who so vehemently opine have actually read the lawsuit AND THE EXHIBITS thereto?
because nobody actually discusses them here. Please remember, first, that caucuses are very short, time-specific, events, rather than all day primaries. ANYBODY stuck at work from 11:00 to Noon or so on election day can not participate.
1. equal protection violation by at-large district creation. If you look at the long quote I posted above, you will see that the at-large districts were defined in a way to ONLY qualify for large Vegas casinos. There are shift workers throughout the State, and there are casinos elsewhere (Reno, for example), but by creating a 4,000 person threshold they quite clearly chose to favor one group of shift workers over all others.
3. Over-value of voting in at-large precincts, therefore under-valuing other votes:
a. in regular precincts, the precinct gets one delegate per 50 registered voters.
b. in the at-large precincts, it gets one delegate per X number of VOTERS IN THE CAUCUS, with the number changing based upon how many vote, as few as 1 per FIVE, as many as one per 50. The example in the suit, while extreme, is valid- compare a county with 400 registered Democrats to an at-large vote of 400. The at-large gets 80 delegates, the county gets 8, no matter how many vote. The numbers change depending upon the number of registered Democrats in a precinct and the number of at-large voters, but they don't become equal until 4,000 voters attend the at-large caucus. Given that the threshold to qualify for an at-large caucus is 400, that would require 100% attendance. Unlikely.
4. Double-counting of votes- regular precincts are given delegates based upon registered Democrats. At-large precincts are assigned delegates based upon attendance. Therefore, if Voter Bob votes at large he registration is counted to value delegates in his precinct, whether he votes or not, while his vote is AGAIN counted in the at-large precinct.
Whatever you think of the timing of the suit, it seems worthwhile to actually have some understanding of the allegations before making the most vehement objections.
"TOO EASY TO VOTE?" ???? Just what is going on here!!!!!! The Clinton Democrats are acting as if they've been briefed by Karl Rove and Dick Nixon! This WREAKS of Bush43 in 2000, when he pulled out all the stops on Sen. McCain. Dirty Politics. Sickening. If Billary gets the Nom., I will never vote Democrat again; and I will start worshipping Nader. The bastard was right...
DWC wrote on January 14, 2008 8:26 AM:Dhonig,
Are you trying to imply that the Vegas Strip Workers should be participating at the same locations as the Reno workers??? Are you implying that there should be no Strip Caucas sites? Why? Because most of them just endorsed Obama?
Rhodium Heart wrote on January 14, 2008 11:13 AM:dhonig:
Nice try. The "equal protection clause" of the 14th amendment does not apply as the caucuses are being organized by the the parties, not the State of Nevada. Political parties are not state actors. "Equal protection of the laws" applies only to government action; it does not apply to private action. There is no equal protection argument.
An alternative is allow the vote to happen -- it's scheduled in a few days -- and then challenge the results if there is an alleged "over-representation." We won't know if there's an over-representation until we see who shows up at the Strip-based "at large" precincts vs. the neighborhood precincts, won't we? Where's the fire to stop the voting now? In fact -- if you are advocating the stopping of voting and counting votes because you're afraid there will be an outcome you disfavor, sounds like you just endorsed the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision.
This lawsuit is groundless and a sham. That said: Hillary might get her wish.
Rick White wrote on January 15, 2008 4:53 PM:Any time elections pit unions against each other, the Republican Party rejoices; because THEY would love to eliminate unions altogether.. Seriously. Wasn't it Karl Rove's strategy to break the Dems party by crushing unions and their money machine? It's part of his "one party" rule... er I mean a..democracy.. yeah that's it. Are you freaking kidding me? How elitist does it sound for the Teacher's Union to come out with this objection after nearly 9 months of silence once this was all agreed to?
The labor movement gets screwed again by itself. How unique!.. NOT
This is awful.
