Obama: Clinton Backers Didn't File Any Lawsuits Before I Won Culinary Union's Endorsement
Barack Obama is apparently taking the new legal controversy in the Nevada caucuses, and turning it to his rhetorical advantage. The recent lawsuit was filed by the Nevada state teachers union, against the at-large precinct caucuses that would allow Vegas Strip workers to easily participate.
Curiously, the lawsuit was filed just a few days after the Culinary Workers Union, which represents workers on the Strip, endorsed Barack Obama. On top of that, the teachers union's leaders and attorneys have ties to the Hillary Clinton campaign.
"Ever since I got the support of Local 226, the lawyers decided to get involved. The rules were OK when the other campaigns thought they would win the Culinary endorsement," Obama told a union rally. "As soon as you decided to support the outsider, the working people instead of the big shots, all the sudden they decided they wanted to change the rules."
Comments (122)
Keith A wrote on January 14, 2008 12:23 AM:Clearly, Obama is just stating the obvious
Katherine wrote on January 14, 2008 12:33 AM:Damn straight.
blackstar wrote on January 14, 2008 12:38 AM:i hope this story gets picked up more, its so obvious (and destructive) what's going on.
Steve wrote on January 14, 2008 12:40 AM:I also notice that Obama didn't call this particular union a special interest group, as he did for AFSCME, AFT, and SEIU in Iowa.
Let's not pretend that Obama welcomes participation by everyone all the time.
Everybody wants what's good for themselves. That's not surprising or even wrong. It's just politics.
Adrian wrote on January 14, 2008 12:41 AM:The "Can't Do, Hope is false" Clintons need to retire the fairy tale of a 3rd term... time for a new era! No more tabloid presidencies...
maavelous wrote on January 14, 2008 12:44 AM:I'm starting to think New Hampshire was a fluke.
hello_world wrote on January 14, 2008 12:44 AM:Glad to see he's taking the fight to the Clinton's. He'll need to do much more of this. From this point on, his entire campaign needs to itself running against Republicans. The Clinton's have made this personal, and they're not just out for blood, they're out to destroy him, or tear apart the party trying. Obama needs to aggressively get the truth out, not just to defend his own record, but to attack and point out the enormous flaws of the Clinton's that Democrats have trained themselves to gloss over.
The Clinton's feel their inalienable right to control the Party has been challenged, and they're playing for keeps.
joe wrote on January 14, 2008 12:46 AM:Eric,
On Meet the Press this morning, Hillary Clinton emphatically denied her campaign's involvement in the teachers' union's lawsuit, and denied that the union has endorsed her. However, you state:
"On top of that, the teachers union's leaders and attorneys have ties to the Hillary Clinton campaign."
Please state exactly what is the nature of the ties you are alleging. Whom? What sort of ties? If ties exist, do other candidates also have similar ties to the same union?
I think you owe your readers more about these claims.
Thanks
Aggie wrote on January 14, 2008 12:46 AM:Aw, Obama must have a lot of outside voters coming in to support him at the caucases as he did in Iowa, busing them in. So now these voters are out of his control I guess. So he doesn't get a few votes. This country will be better off with a Barack Obama as President of the US.
Lis wrote on January 14, 2008 12:47 AM:I'd just like to add that the caucus rules have been known to all Nevada citizens for the past year.
Why one union there would suddenly take note of another's so-called advantage after all this time makes no sense to me. It's not like union members don't keep up on the news in their state.
hello_world wrote on January 14, 2008 12:50 AM:Steve, Obama has never called any union a special interest group, and he has always had a solidly pro-union record. He called the influx of 527 money by union leadership in Iowa to attack a fellow Democrat with a consistent pro-union record (often against the wishes of many of the union members) "special interest" money, because it wasn't being spent in the best political interests of the actual union members, and was being used to take down other Dems instead of actual Republicans.
It's ok, easy mistake to make.
AJM wrote on January 14, 2008 12:51 AM:Either this is a laudable effort to increase turnout in which case Sen. Obama has a point or this equivalent to putting polling places in locations much more convenient to the strip workers than to the teachers: the teachers didn't object then when they thought it would favor their candidate and Obama doesn't object now when he thinks it favors him. In short, the Teacher's Union may be doing the right thing for the wrong reason.
Aggie wrote on January 14, 2008 12:52 AM: Opps: I meant the country will be better off WITHOUT Barack Obama as President, is a worthless candidate with phony words, change, unity, please, give
me a break, you know what, I have no Hope, this country's people have a herd mentality and that will be the downfall of the US.
This is not going to play to HRC's advantage regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit. All she is doing so far is mobilizing those who don't support her.
green heron wrote on January 14, 2008 12:53 AM:In spite of their union hacks, the teachers are going to vote for Obama too.
brad wrote on January 14, 2008 12:58 AM:ah, thanks for the clarification Aggie.
Herd mentality, let's see. Would that have any relation to dynastic politics? Is there an off chance we could get a third surname in the White House after 20 years and counting? Or do we need to go Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton for 24 years minimum?
Do you like George P Bush, Chelsea Clinton, or Jeb as the elder statesman in 2020?
Anne wrote on January 14, 2008 1:01 AM:This was a decision, to place polling places in or near the casinos, made with the full agreement of the teachers union. Then the culinary union endorsed Obama and the teachers union sued.
The suit will go nowhere because the Nevada caucus is non-binding.
hello_world wrote on January 14, 2008 1:02 AM:AJM, the caucus is being held on a Saturday, which was a concession to teachers and most other professions in Nevada. The Culinary Union represents the majority or hotel and casino workers in Las Vegas, and as such, Saturdays are by far their busiest day of the week. This was the reason the Culinary Union asked for, and received the at-large precinct caucuses from the Democratic Party.
Anyone suggesting that this was intended to unfairly increase the power of a particular voting block is being disingenuous or is just looking to resuffle the deck now that things haven't gone to script.
Duane wrote on January 14, 2008 1:07 AM:Good for Obama! This is exactly the message he needs to deliver. Let the Clinton supporters do the old "we were for at-large caucuses before we were against them."
julio ointment wrote on January 14, 2008 1:08 AM:Joe - some information on the plaintiffs' attorneys' connection to the Clintons, from Jake Tapper's blog:
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.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/tough-guy-pol-1.html
Duane wrote on January 14, 2008 1:08 AM:On Meet the Press this morning, Hillary Clinton emphatically denied her campaign's involvement in the teachers' union's lawsuit, and denied that the union has endorsed her.
She lied on MTP and said they weren't her supporters. Even if they weren't, how could she know this?
Did she ask them?
Anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 1:12 AM:Do you like George P Bush, Chelsea Clinton, or Jeb as the elder statesman in 2020?
In HillaryExerience (TM), Chelsea already has fifteen years of experience. She'll be an elder statesperson by the time she is old enough to run for President.
nunya wrote on January 14, 2008 1:12 AM:
U.S. Supreme Court Denies Certiorari
for Landmark Right to Petition Case
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2008-01-13.htm
markg8 wrote on January 14, 2008 1:15 AM:joe by now you ought to have figured it out. If Hillary or her campaign say they're not involved or going negative that means they're pulling the strings or about to unleash third party racist whistlers.
I find it weird they have BET founder Robert Johnson, who is one of the richest men in America, who once ran full page ads in favor of repealing the estate tax, whose efforts to crush any African American competition on cable worked as well for him as Windows
has for Gates, as relevant to most black SC voters. They might like his programing but frankly he has as much in common with them as most of us white folks have with Bill Gates.
Everybody wants what's good for themselves. That's not surprising or even wrong. It's just politics.
-------------------
suing to prevent or obstruct part of your opponent's constituency from getting to voting places is wrong. period. it is willfully subverting the democratic process for your own personal gain. why can't we just call things as they are? race-baiting, the obstruction of fair voting, and fear-mongering are WRONG. under what reasoning could one say they are morally permissible in politics but no-where else?
for the record: if a group connected to Obama did the same thing under roughly equivalent circumstances and he didn't denounce it, i would not vote for him.
Harpo Marxist wrote on January 14, 2008 1:36 AM:God Damn, it's time for the Clinton's to go!!
Liars on top of it all.
S. L. wrote on January 14, 2008 1:38 AM:I would really like for Hillary to be asked, on camera, whether there has been any discussion between the plaintiffs and her campaign about this suit--and the nature of those discussions. I would also like her to answer whether she agrees that you can or should enfranchise a group of voters simply by disenfranchising another group, as the lawsuit seems to be saying.
ParkSloper wrote on January 14, 2008 1:41 AM:I have no idea if Hillary was behind the lawsuit filing.
However, I will only support a Democrat who is more interested in winning than playing fair. Liberals playing fair have helped bring 8 years of Bush and his destructive policies.
Hillary is sending a strong message that she wants to win.
blackstar wrote on January 14, 2008 1:50 AM:However, I will only support a Democrat who is more interested in winning than playing fair. Liberals playing fair have helped bring 8 years of Bush and his destructive policies.
----------------
yeah, if Hillary runs against McCain, i'll be all for her airing "i wonder what he ACTUALLY TOLD the Vietnamese when they were torturing him".."AMERICAN SECRETS, perhaps!?" ads. /sarcasm
no, i would rather lose and keep some semblance of dignity than win with Rovian political tactics. what you're espousing would totally blur into indistinguishability the difference between Democrats and Republicans where the strongest differences exist: their tone and approach to politics.
and its only through a positive tone and reasoned, moral approach can we actually win.
Marc wrote on January 14, 2008 1:52 AM:This is a good issue for Barack. Make Hilary denounce it, which of course she will never do.
jeanba wrote on January 14, 2008 2:00 AM:ParkSloper,
Did you really read your post before sending it? So by playing race card, personally attacking her opponents, suppressing voters is a winning strategy? Are you talking as democrat or a republican? Talking about winning how can she (Hillary) win while over 50 percent of electorate will never vote for her? How can she win while independents will never vote for her? She has no absolute support from women not even from the liberal or moderate democrats how can she win? Do we, democrats , want to be like to Tories (Conservatives) in Britain? Haven't won election for many years, losers? Once McCain or Huckabee are elected in November don't blame anyone but ourselves, democrats. This election is ours to lose, nominate Hillary it is over, look for GOP win and great loss in congress.
Steve wrote on January 14, 2008 2:16 AM:Hi AJM... Take a look at this slide. It says it pretty clearly, I think:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/obama-powerpoint/?resultpage=5&
Steve wrote on January 14, 2008 2:18 AM:Sorry--was responding to hello_world and not AJM above.
Andy wrote on January 14, 2008 4:30 AM:Ok, ok, but what is this: "As soon as you decided to support the outsider"..
Since when is Obama an outsider? He is a Washington politician too? Did he resigne?
Andy,
Obama reference to the outsider meant the non establishment candidate which obviously he is not. Hillary is the establishment, corrupt candidate that needs to be defeated. Democrats will lose not only the presidency but also Congress if she is nominated.
jeanba wrote on January 14, 2008 5:44 AM:Correction:
Obama as well as Edwards are the non establishment candidates, unlike Hillary. So Andy the outsider meant the non establishment candidates.
Jan wrote on January 14, 2008 6:33 AM:re: "On top of that, the teachers union's leaders and attorneys have ties to the Hillary Clinton campaign."
This is reckless hackery.
Just a little red meat for the idiots.
Tim Russert claimed they "endorsed" her yesterday. She denied it and she was right.
So today her crime has become the crime of having ties to teachers.
Clinton has nothing to do with this, but that doesn't stop any Clinton Haters from deciding that she does.
FINE.
Culinary Workers? Teachers?
Culinary Workers? Teachers?
In the Democratic Party, do we have more culinary workers or do we have more teachers?
I guess Obama is now criticizing teachers as vote suppressors.
It's kind of like him criticizing black leaders as racists.
Yeah, Obama's doing just a great job of being a uniter, not a divider! What a guy!
grover_rover wrote on January 14, 2008 7:01 AM:I'm glad Obama is making sure the Clintons and their supporters aren't getting away with their dirty tactics any more. Kudos!
And to anyone (ie Jan, others) who thinks that this lawsuit has nothing to do with the Clinton campaign trying to disenfranchise voters (now that they are likely to vote for Obama instead of Hillary), quit being idiots. You are either incredibly naive and ignorant to how dirty your own candidate is, or you know damn well what they are trying to do, and you support it anyway and tell lies and lash out at Obama just to help your candidate get ahead. You diehard Hillary supporters who are unwilling to open your eyes and see what your candidate is really like are just as bad as her.
I love that you can say that him pointing out the obvious somehow equals him saying that black leaders are racist (which never happened by the way)...you people are without shame. Go read a damn book and educate yourselves.
jagena wrote on January 14, 2008 7:08 AM:Obama is a real rock star...loud heavy music with no lyrics and no substance. The longer he stays in this race, the less he says, the more he attacks. He is becoming a contradiction to himself..who is this guy anyway..where does he come from, what does he stand for..all we know is that he can rock and roll..he seems to do a pretty good dance too when it comes to answering strong had questions.........
Duane wrote on January 14, 2008 7:11 AM:Clinton has nothing to do with this, but that doesn't stop any Clinton Haters from deciding that she does.
The folks who brought the suit are Hillary backers. This has been verified by three web news sources. Can you provide proof that the folks who brought the suit are not in fact associates of the Clintons and supporters of her candidacy?
In the Democratic Party, do we have more culinary workers or do we have more teachers?
The Culinary workers union in Nevada is the largest union in the state with around 60,000 members.
I guess Obama is now criticizing teachers as vote suppressors.
Teachers did not bring this suit and by some reports are not happy with it. The suit was in fact sought by high-ranking teacher's union officials who are aligned with Hillary Clinton.
It's kind of like him criticizing black leaders as racists.
Barack Obama hasn't criticized any black leaders as racists. I defy you to provide one shred of evidence for your ludicrous assertions. In a discursive medium, you should be fully prepared to BACK YOUR SHIT UP.
Yeah, Obama's doing just a great job of being a uniter, not a divider!
I fail to understand why you are using Republican talking points against Barack Obama.
What a guy!
Finally, a point on which we agree. I look forward to your factually-sound and well-sourced rebuttal.
Duane wrote on January 14, 2008 7:16 AM:Obama is a real rock star...loud heavy music with no lyrics and no substance. The longer he stays in this race, the less he says, the more he attacks. He is becoming a contradiction to himself..who is this guy anyway..where does he come from, what does he stand for..all we know is that he can rock and roll..he seems to do a pretty good dance too when it comes to answering strong had questions.........
May I politely suggest these sources of information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obamahttp://www.barackobama.com/index.php
Thanks for expressing interest in the Barack Obama campaign.
Looks like the links ran together, so I'll post them one at a time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
and
http://www.barackobama.com/index.php
Thanks again!
Obama is the choice of the Middle East check out muslims for Obama 08 website.
I question his loyalty to America. He turns his back to the flag. Why? The media lets him skate that issue.
Compare headlines on any news page and see who gets the positive lines.
Obama should stop HIS whiney talk about Clinton and focus on his own campaign.
jeanba wrote on January 14, 2008 7:23 AM:jagena,
Did you really believe what you wrote in your post? Obama with no substance? In Illinois as a state senator he passed numerous bills(on death penalty reform, ethics reform, childrens' healthcare etc). In addition since elected to US Senate he and Sen. Lugar passed a bill to keep nuclear material safe in the old soviet nations and Russia. US Senate passed ethics reform bill sponsored by senator Obama and he is just a junior, how do you claim that he is no substance? Dare to explain instead of repeating Hillary's lies and attacks on the senator.
Who has been attacking the other, senator Clinton and her husband while Obama stayed mute. You know what I really think it is sad to have people in the democratic party who would even support candidates like Clinton II, a former Goldwater republican, what makes you think that she is no longer a republican anyway?
Answering strong questions? Can you explain what strong questions sound or look like? No offense but you pretty much sound ignorant, it's time to think for yoursefl instead of repeating Mark Penn (Karl Rove cousin)talking point. Go ahead elect Hillary, lose presidency and congress, and the supreme court for good.
My understanding is that the Nevada teachers have not endorsed Clinton and that the special caucus centers have been set up for culinary workers alone. So set them up for every group that has funny hours.
fballfn,
I see now the bigots are in fully mode attack, fballfn who are you to question anyone loyalty to America? Clinton selling technology to China is what should be questioned, but people like you of the Clinton Wing of the Democratic Party are so blind to see anything wrong the Clintons are doing to the party.
Last, muslims are human beings too, we all will face the same fate whether you like it or not.
As a veteran who fought for Hillary's and Bush jr, what have you done to this country to give you the right to question anyone loyalty to America?
Lee,
None has objected to increase voters participation in the caucus, the Obama campaign is encouraging that. It Clinton backers who are trying to suppress culinary workers from caucusing at the Vegas strip. Something I thought George W Bush would only do but I guess the Clintons don't mind suppressing union workers from voting just because they did not endorse her. Who knows she might need them if wins the nomination (which I hope it won't happen).
Larry K Guffey wrote on January 14, 2008 7:40 AM:Enough! Bush..Clinton..Clinton..Bush..Bush..then whats next hillary clinton then jeb bush?
Anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 7:42 AM:AJM wrote on January 14, 2008 12:51 AM:
"Either this is a laudable effort to increase turnout in which case Sen. Obama has a point or this equivalent to putting polling places in locations much more convenient to the strip workers than to the teachers: the teachers didn't object then when they thought it would favor their candidate and Obama doesn't object now when he thinks it favors him." AJM, who are you kidding? For months, Obama was a complete longshot to get the Culinary endorsement, and his campaign did not sue or put up anyone to sue so . And there is, of course, no justification imaginable for suing so close to the election date, after the plaintiffs have sized up the likely effect of the precincts they are complaining about.
You can take the Goldwater Girl out of the Republican Party, but you can not take the Republican out of The Goldwater Girl. Hillary is still a Republican at Heart, and we all no how much Republicans love to play The Vote Suppresion Game.
You Go Goldwater Girl!
Your Hero, Barry Goldwater, was against the civil rights bill that ended segregation, so no wonder you do not have much respect for Dr. Martin Luther King.
Hillary just being true to her Goldwater Girl self!
From Nevada Sun:
"But a major premise of the lawsuit appears to be false, according to a Sun analysis.
Even if there is considerably high turnout for instance, 10,000 people those at-large precincts will provide just 6 percent of the state’s overall delegates. Because Nevada is holding a caucus, not a primary, the winner will be based on the number of delegates a candidate receives, not the total number of votes."
Michael A wrote on January 14, 2008 8:00 AM:Great, just what we need more election year lawsuits. Gotta love that LBJ clone running for pres. She will pull out all the stops to get power, will keep us in an intractable war regardless of the body count, and will lie through her teeth for raw power. She is "shucking and jiving" her way to the white house.
gcs wrote on January 14, 2008 8:11 AM:I remember a story from the 92 election where Bill Clinton told a group of New York Rabbis that he would designate part of the White House kitchen as Glatt Kosher. Now, I'm not sure if he actually went ahead and did that but afterward one of the Rabbis was quoted as saying, "Boy this guy will say anything to get elected."
Say anything and do anything. Screw the party, screw the congress, screw the country. The Clintons will do anything to get another shot at the White House.
I, for one, am sick of living under two ruling families. Is this America? Or not?
fballfn wrote on January 14, 2008 8:12 AM:I have not decided who i will vote for.
Who am i to question? If i am considering who to give my vote, I want to see them honor the flag and actually recite the National Anthem like all Candidates do on both sides. Let's see him put that hand across his heart just once and say it.
dhonig wrote on January 14, 2008 8:13 AM:Just in case anybody is curious (and few seem to be), the actual basis of the lawsuit:
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.
What i see as the choice is a liar and a recovering coke addict.
I may change my Party.
But then again, I have had enough of Bush the recovering alcoholic too.
Jeff wrote on January 14, 2008 8:21 AM:I am so sick of the Clintons that if she becomes the party nominee I intend to stay home in Nov.
Elizabeth wrote on January 14, 2008 8:24 AM:Dear gajena,
Please learn how to use your computer.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Sincerely,
Marc wrote on January 14, 2008 8:27 AM:Open your eyes, Clinton supporters. There is no way she would win in the general. She has run a fraudulent, sleazy campaign, and many, many people are able to see this. Right me off as an Obama supporter if you need to, but her campaign is simply indefensible. The Clintons are not what we need right now as democrats. They are the last thing we need. Let's exercise a little bit of critical thought. If you are hung up on Obama's experience factor, consider his background as a community organizer, constitutional law professor, president of the Harvard Law Review, and some of the truly impressive work he has done as a politician in Illinois and Washington. It's there for you if you are willing to look.
bvd wrote on January 14, 2008 8:27 AM:The most telling thing on this board is how Clinton supporters try to spin this. Face it, you have no defense on this. It's despicable.
Voter suppression is a vile tactic. It's also in recent years a Republican tactic, one we ALL agree is wrong when they try it. Why won't you acknowledge it as wrong here? Look in the mirror, my "progressive" brothers and sisters. This isn't s difference of opinion on personalities or positions. This is voter suppression.
The claim that it's not her campaign doing this is playing semantics - leading individuals in the teachers' union are prominent supporters of Hillary. The Clinton campaign has not denounced the lawsuit - “Not for us to decide,” said Rory Reid, Clinton’s state chairman, in an e-mail to the Sun. “We just want the process to be fair.”
Fair? By making it harder for people to vote. Isn't that the Republican claim about "voter fraud"?
Obama has never attempted anything like this. If he ever does I will denounce it as vehemently as I will denounce this attempt by the Clinton campaign. Trying to suppress votes is EVIL. And any Clinton supporter who doesn't admit it and condemn it is no better than the Republicans who are doing this for the Bush administration.
One more tidbit to chew on as you think about this. The Culinary Union endorsed Obama without polling the union workers. There is no indication that the workers favor one candidate over another. The at-large precincts IN A CAUCUS would now have those union workers caucusing at their place of work, forced to publicly stand up and choose their candidate in front of shop stewards and union executives.
Jan wrote on January 14, 2008 8:37 AM:For Duane:
1. The folks who brought the suit are DEMOCRATS!! Now I have to prove to you that they are not Hillary backers???
Duane, the proof is, They have NOT endorsed a candidate!!!!!
2. Does the Democatic Party have more culinary workers or do they have more teachers?
(You didn't answer the question with this answer: The Culinary workers union in Nevada is the largest union in the state with around 60,000 members.)
3. "By some reports, teachers are not happy with it."
Great FACT-finding, Duane. By "some" reports?????
4. Okay, Obama's CAMPAIGN criticized other black leaders as racists.
You're a funny one to demand FACTS about what the actual CANDIDATES themselves have said!
(see above regarding Hillary Clinton and the teacher's union)
5. I'll repeat this point for you, Duane, since you don't seem to get the irony of your own post directed at me;
Yeah, Obama's doing just a great job of being a uniter, not a divider!
Again, just look at the posts here from Obama supporters. The Great American Hope can't even bring his own Party together.
His supporters are some of the ugliest Clinton Haters on the planet.
eric wrote on January 14, 2008 8:40 AM:Marc wrote on January 14, 2008 8:27 AM:
Open your eyes, Clinton supporters. There is no way she would win in the general. She has run a fraudulent, sleazy campaign, and many, many people are able to see this. Right me off as an Obama supporter if you need to, but her campaign is simply indefensible. The Clintons are not what we need right now as democrats. They are the last thing we need. Let's exercise a little bit of critical thought. If you are hung up on Obama's experience factor, consider his background as a community organizer, constitutional law professor, president of the Harvard Law Review, and some of the truly impressive work he has done as a politician in Illinois and Washington. It's there for you if you are willing to look.
That's it. I have been saying that it wouldn't take much more of these comments from these obnoxious Obama supporters with their cult-speak to officially steer me toward Hillary - If Edwards ever drops that is.
These Obama people just too much. "It is there for you if you are willing to look?" Sounds more like a recruiting like for Heavens Gate than politics. And the bashing of the other candidates is very off-putting.
So here it is: Marc, you have officially alienated one potential Obama supporter. Now, you don't get full credit as there are seemingly legions of Obama supporters out there that continue to piss off everybody - but you tipped it for me - congratulations!
Elizabeth wrote on January 14, 2008 8:41 AM:dhonig -
Since all of the potential problems you point out (certainly worthy of consideration or debate) were established a year or more ago and the teachers' union was involved in the negotiations that set up the system (hence the caucus being held on a Saturday so that teachers can easily participate), what do YOU think of the timing?
**Edited***
Marc wrote on January 14, 2008 8:27 AM:
Open your eyes, Clinton supporters. There is no way she would win in the general. She has run a fraudulent, sleazy campaign, and many, many people are able to see this. Right me off as an Obama supporter if you need to, but her campaign is simply indefensible. The Clintons are not what we need right now as democrats. They are the last thing we need. Let's exercise a little bit of critical thought. If you are hung up on Obama's experience factor, consider his background as a community organizer, constitutional law professor, president of the Harvard Law Review, and some of the truly impressive work he has done as a politician in Illinois and Washington. It's there for you if you are willing to look.
That's it. I have been saying that it wouldn't take many more of these comments from these obnoxious Obama supporters with their cult-speak to officially steer me toward Hillary - If Edwards ever drops that is.
These Obama people are just too much. "It is there for you if you are willing to look?" Sounds more like a recruiting slogan for Heavens Gate than politics. And the bashing of the other candidates is very off-putting.
So here it is: Marc, you have officially alienated one potential Obama supporter. Now, you don't get full credit as there are seemingly legions of Obama supporters out there that continue to piss off everybody - but you tipped it for me - congratulations!
Jan wrote on January 14, 2008 8:46 AM:bvd, you said: "The claim that it's not her campaign doing this is playing semantics - leading individuals in the teachers' union are prominent supporters of Hillary."
Seriously, is it impossible for you to see clearly that YOU are the one playing with semantics? Do you even know the meaning of the word "semantics"????
bvd, does Hillary Clinton have the endorsement of this Nevada teacher's union?
NO.
Then why are you accusing her campaign of doing this?
BECAUSE YOU'RE PLAYING SEMANTICS!!!!!
Whew.
His supporters are some of the ugliest Clinton Haters on the planet.
Jan, thanks for bringing everyone back together and focusing on what's important.
Marc wrote on January 14, 2008 8:50 AM:It's so interesting that all Clinton supporters have to appeal to is there own sense of victimhood. They're just never treated fairly, are they? Someone is always misinterpreting them or being, you know, mean.
Obama is "divisive" the press is against us, men are against us, Chris Matthews is a jerk, the Iowa caucuses are flawed etc. People aren't allowed to call us on our BRAZENLY dishonest, sleazy brand of politics. They have run a corrupt and deeply dispiriting campaign.
But no, we're not allowed to point this out. That makes us "haters". Just add us to the list, eh Clinton gang? The world is like soooo out to get you. Almost enough to laugh if I didn't actually care about the future of this party.
Michael A wrote on January 14, 2008 8:50 AM:Jan, the republican until h.clinton started running for president, you are too funny. Why do you want to relive the clinton I years when you voted against him? Very strange, but I am sure you support h.clinton because of her own unique experiences as first lady, but you voted against her basically in the 90's. Toooooo funny.
On the timing of the lawsuit, it was an act of God. These people were just so upset about making it easy for people to vote that they decided to file the suit right after the union endorsed obama.
Of course, the democratic party doesn't want people to vote, right? Let's supress turnout as much as possible, right? Oh, and the party wants everyone to have an id to vote to prevent people from voting, right? And students at universities, such as the universities in iowa, shouldn't be allowed to vote either, right?
That's the democratic party program under the clintons, but it sounds like the republican party's tactics. I'm confused. Is griffin working for the clintons now to supress the vote? Next thing the clintons will want to impose a poll tax.
Theresa wrote on January 14, 2008 8:52 AM:Read an interesting article in the Chicago Tribune
(www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama,0,1843097.story?page=1) "O'bama knows his way around a ballot".
The article is about Obama's first run for the Illinois State Legislature. Apparently he systematically went thru all the petition signatures for all the other candidates to be on the ballot and challenged them to the point that he was the only candidate remaining. Including his mentor's State Sen. Alice Palmer.
In another interesting article in The Atlantic "Teacher and Apprentice" (www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/clinton-obama)
upon arrival at the U.S. Senate he went straight to Senator Clinton for advice.
The article in The Atlantic also had some other interesting comments about Mr. Hsu and how that information was relayed to the media.
After reading these 2 articles I have decided to not read anymore. Every candidate, no matter how eloquent, no matter how much integrity, no matter the promises, all will turn negative, all will backstab and all will do what they feel needs to be done to get elected. To misquote "The Godfather" - "It's not personal, it's politics".
The best we can hope for is to read their positions on the issues we care about, read how they intend to get it done and how they intend to pay for it all. Then determine who it is we feel will do the better job and vote. The only certainty in all this is that we all know the republicans are not that candidate.
Liam wrote on January 14, 2008 8:53 AM:
I always decide for myself who I am going to vote for. It looks like those of you who are claiming that you are supporting Hillary because you do not like some of the Obama supporters, means that you are not deciding on the basis of which candidate has made the best case to you.
Your reason for saying that you support Hillary is just down right moronic. If you were not for her before, but are supporting her because you do not like some people that you heard from, but never met, on the internet, then you truly are a moron.
Anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 8:53 AM:This is a stretch: "As soon as you decided to support the outsider, the working people instead of the big shots, all the sudden they decided they wanted to change the rules."
Marc,
One Edwards support, I am considering voting for Obama in my home state since I know my man Edwards won't win the nomination. Marc, don't worry you might have lost Eric, but you have gained me, a new Obama supporter. Congratulations.
Anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 8:58 AM:To blackstar:
"suing to prevent or obstruct part of your opponent's constituency from getting to voting places is wrong. period. it is willfully subverting the democratic process for your own personal gain."
Hmmm.., what about suing to knock all your oppenents off the ballot and then win un-oppessed?? Check-out how Obama won his first election!!
dhonig wrote on January 14, 2008 9:03 AM:Elizabeth, you ask a valid question:
dhonig - Since all of the potential problems you point out (certainly worthy of consideration or debate) were established a year or more ago and the teachers' union was involved in the negotiations that set up the system (hence the caucus being held on a Saturday so that teachers can easily participate), what do YOU think of the timing?
I have two answers. First (and this appears to be true based upon the aforementioned exhibit), the complained of points were added AFTER the agreement. This is evidenced by the plan stating the at-large precincts would be set by October 31, 2007. Second, and more important, the timing is clearly calculated to force an emergency injunction without time for reflection. Does that mean it comes from Clinton's camp, or only that it is a very aggressive tactic by the attorneys? I have been a trial lawyer for over 20 years and have seen similar tactics repeatedly. You really can't read any more into it than exactly what it is- hardball litigation.
Michael A wrote on January 14, 2008 9:04 AM:See this is the problem with the clintons. They are so dirty it really is disgusting and when they do something nasty, they throw stones at the other person claiming see they allegedly did the same dirty trick. Well, lets just pull everyone down in the mud to wallow with the clintons. It really is pathetic how blind clinton lovers are. Four more years of the same garbage that we've had for the last 27????? Who wants that? I sure don't.
corinne wrote on January 14, 2008 9:06 AM:Obama can talk up the culinary union endorsement all he wants but the word is the rank and file support Hillary more than Obama.
I'd like to see how that holds up and if it does, we'll be seeing a greatly chastened Obama. Pride goeth before a fall and all that.
jeanba wrote on January 14, 2008 9:06 AM:"Obama knows his way around the ballot"
Anonymous,
What's your point? What does this have to do with Clinton suppressing votes from the same people she claims to have been defending for the last 35 years?
Duane wrote on January 14, 2008 9:07 AM:Read an interesting article in the Chicago Tribune (www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama,0,1843097.story?page=1) "O'bama knows his way around a ballot".The article is about Obama's first run for the Illinois State Legislature. Apparently he systematically went thru all the petition signatures for all the other candidates to be on the ballot and challenged them to the point that he was the only candidate remaining. Including his mentor's State Sen. Alice Palmer.
In another interesting article in The Atlantic "Teacher and Apprentice" (www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/clinton-obama)
upon arrival at the U.S. Senate he went straight to Senator Clinton for advice.The article in The Atlantic also had some other interesting comments about Mr. Hsu and how that information was relayed to the media.
After reading these 2 articles I have decided to not read anymore. Every candidate, no matter how eloquent, no matter how much integrity, no matter the promises, all will turn negative, all will backstab and all will do what they feel needs to be done to get elected. To misquote "The Godfather" - "It's not personal, it's politics".
The best we can hope for is to read their positions on the issues we care about, read how they intend to get it done and how they intend to pay for it all. Then determine who it is we feel will do the better job and vote. The only certainty in all this is that we all know the republicans are not that candidate.
Theresa, that was a masterful and well-thought out smear. You appear to be a professional. I'm about to start working so I don't have time to rebut it but I did want to congratulate you.
Who do think you will be supporting in the primary?
Anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 9:12 AM:When is Obama going to say something about the millions of people in Florida and Michigan who have been disenfranchised. Obama only seems to care about people being disenfranchised when it loses him votes. It is OK for the unions who endorse him to not follow the rules, but not for the states of Michigan and Florida? This man and his followers have no shame.
bnb wrote on January 14, 2008 9:12 AM:This primary system sucks. One state with Diebold machines, and one state with a delegate system designed to favor poll frontrunners get to decide for the rest of us who can be president. Both states have no cities, minorities, mass transit, yet they give the corporate press an excuse to 'winnow the race' and thus allow the rest of us fewer choices than these two entrenched states have.
In the future, may I suggest a lottery to decide the order of states to be held no January first of election year. Or just a national primary.
jeanba wrote on January 14, 2008 9:13 AM:'Obama can talk up the culinary union endorsement all he wants but the word is the rank and file support Hillary more than Obama.'
Corinne,
Obama has never claimed to have all the support from rank and file of the union members, he has been working hard to earn their support, unlike your candidate hillary who has the establishment behind her and who feels entitled to be the nominee without earning it.
You are right on one thing, "pride goeth before a fall and all that" this can apply to Hillary.
P.S progressives do not support candidates who support wars that kill innocent women
Anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 9:24 AM:Lee wrote on January 14, 2008 7:28 AM:
My understanding is that the Nevada teachers have not endorsed Clinton and that the special caucus centers have been set up for culinary workers alone. So set them up for every group that has funny hours.
Well, that wouldn't include teachers, who are, by my research, off on Saturdays. Every single teacher in the state can attend. Last time I checked, restaurants have their busiest day on Saturday. That is why the at-large caucus sites were set up.
Because the culinary workers have union representation, their bosses saw this as a way to enfranchise their members. The teachers union was instrumental in getting the caucus scheduled on a Saturday to help their members.
Unions don't just help their members with higher wages. And that is a good thing.
If the Teachers Union gets these caucus sites invalidated, it would taint any win.
swarty wrote on January 14, 2008 9:25 AM:Lee wrote on January 14, 2008 7:28 AM:
My understanding is that the Nevada teachers have not endorsed Clinton and that the special caucus centers have been set up for culinary workers alone. So set them up for every group that has funny hours.
Well, that wouldn't include teachers, who are, by my research, off on Saturdays. Every single teacher in the state can attend. Last time I checked, restaurants have their busiest day on Saturday. That is why the at-large caucus sites were set up.
Because the culinary workers have union representation, their bosses saw this as a way to enfranchise their members. The teachers union was instrumental in getting the caucus scheduled on a Saturday to help their members.
Unions don't just help their members with higher wages. And that is a good thing.
If the Teachers Union gets these caucus sites invalidated, it would taint any win.
sfam wrote on January 14, 2008 9:28 AM:For those who say that Hillary has nothing to do with the decision by the Nevada state teachers union, doesn't it strike you as more than a little odd that they decide to file suit just a few days prior to the primary instead of, say, months ago?
Why the delay? Hmmmm....what action took place a few days before they decided to file suit? Gosh, sure seems like the Obama union endorsements seem like the prompter, don't they? Common people - support her, fine, but use your brain when you analyze this. Hillary is clearly trying to either invalidate the results in the MSM in the case of an Obama win, or if she wins, she can now crow about doing it while handicapped. That's what this is about.
Gtash wrote on January 14, 2008 9:28 AM:I hate to intrude on this love-fest between Hillary and Obama, but I am sticking with Edwards all the way to the convention. He is getting my money and my time and my attention. Seems to me Hillary and Obama are going to be sticking each other for the next several months and that's good threatre if you're into diverting bloodsport.
sickofitall wrote on January 14, 2008 9:39 AM:actually, lee, the caucuses ARE NOT exclusive to casino workers. any worker in nevada with a 2-1/2 mile radius of the caucus sites can go there. so the clinton backers really have to leg to stand on. and i'd forgetten that the caucus was on a saturday, when teachers don't work anyway!
the clintons = lies and dirty politics. oh, yeah ... and shamelessness.
audit the polls wrote on January 14, 2008 9:48 AM:99% of the voters haven't spoken. Why the rush to limit debate?
audit the polls wrote on January 14, 2008 9:53 AM:When we eliminate candidates, the remaining ones no longer have a reason to listen to us. Is that what we want?
A mensch wrote on January 14, 2008 9:54 AM:These three Dem candidates are all the same?
Uh....
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/obama-powerpoint/?resultpage=5&
'nuf said.
I strongly disagree with 'liberals' who are more interested in playing fair than winning. Playing fair has given the US 8 years of Bush's destructive policies.
For those who claim to that their dignity more important than winning, please consider how devoted you are to liberal causes.
The media is pretending to be in love with Obama. If they manage to get Hillary out of the picture, Obama will be the next target. In recent years, the media has always gone after major Democrats (B Clinton, Gore, J Kerry, H Clinton, ...).
I have no idea if Hillary was behind the lawsuit filing, but she is sending a strong message that she wants to win.
Theresa wrote on January 14, 2008 10:01 AM:Duane
Not a smear, not a professional just a voter who reads. You obviously missed the point. Obama states that he is for change, it's time to end the old Washington status-quo etc., however, as evidened by these 2 articles he is no better. When it comes down to it, all politicians are political and out for the same thing, to win and to win at any and all costs.
The point is to get away from the sound bite, get away from the talking points, the interpretations, the pundits, the mudslinging, the speeches and see where the candidates stand on the issues. Decide for yourselves and vote.
I don't need Clinton, Obama or Edwards to interpret what was said by the other. Nor do I need Matthews, Scarbourough, Hannity, Russert, Wolf, Malveaux etc to interpret or explain what the candidate meant when he said this or that.
This is the most historical election in my lifetime, we have marvelous candidates, one a woman and one an African American, and it pains me to see each being pit against each other. This is the most important election, we have to get it right and stay focused to insure that the outcome in November does not become a republican victory.
All this fighting among ourselves is not healthy for that outcome.
Duane
Not a smear, not a professional just a voter who reads. You obviously missed the point. Obama states that he is for change, it's time to end the old Washington status-quo etc., however, as evidened by these 2 articles he is no better. When it comes down to it, all politicians are political and out for the same thing, to win and to win at any and all costs.
The point is to get away from the sound bite, get away from the talking points, the interpretations, the pundits, the mudslinging, the speeches and see where the candidates stand on the issues. Decide for yourselves and vote.
I don't need Clinton, Obama or Edwards to interpret what was said by the other. Nor do I need Matthews, Scarbourough, Hannity, Russert, Wolf, Malveaux etc to interpret or explain what the candidate meant when he said this or that.
This is the most historical election in my lifetime, we have marvelous candidates, one a woman and one an African American, and it pains me to see each being pit against each other. This is the most important election, we have to get it right and stay focused to insure that the outcome in November does not become a republican victory.
All this fighting among ourselves is not healthy for that outcome.
As to whom I am voting for in the primary, I'm from Florida and our delegates will not be permitted at the Democrat convention, it's a moot point.
I have to agree with the general sentiments contained in their complaint filed last Friday. To be certain, it does give an unfair advantage to those Democrats who don't happen to work in a Las Vegas resort that employs 4,000 or more.
However, it's not those workers who brought the lawsuit, but the Nevada State teachers Association. And given that teachers don't work on Saturdays (with one or two rare exceptions, perhaps), I'm really hard-pressed to see the unfair burden this rule places on teachers who work in a school outside their district or precinct. Therefore, I don't think the Nevada State Education Association has any standing to bring this suit on behalf of its members.
So I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep if a judge dismissed it. But then again, I'm not a election law attorney.
What say you, dhonig? Does the NSEA membership have standing here?
Aloha.
P.S.: The NSEA hasn't endorsed Sen. Clinton, nor any other candidate.
DonnaG wrote on January 14, 2008 10:15 AM:Best of outcomes regarding this voter suppression lawsuit:
1] the court decides to reject the unfair last minute attempt to change the rules to which the plaintiffs had earlier agreed. The caucus proceeds.
2] the court agrees to take this whole matter up at a later time in order to fully address the specifics of the complaint. That full inquiry, of course, gives the defendants the absolute right to depose the plaintiffs, who under oath, will be asked and have to answer truthfully about involvement of the Clinton campaign operatives [like Reid's son who heads the Clinton NV campaign] in deciding the nature and timing of the lawsuit.......depositions appropriate under what are allegations and counter-allegations of breach of contractual agreements reached among NV democrats leaders in October of 2007.
Hopefully, unlike the Clinton White House papers which are being withheld during these critical primary weeks, that lawsuit could give the public timely information to determine in fact whether her campaign did choose to suppress voter turnout.
NCSteve wrote on January 14, 2008 10:21 AM:When is Obama going to say something about the millions of people in Florida and Michigan who have been disenfranchised. Obama only seems to care about people being disenfranchised when it loses him votes. It is OK for the unions who endorse him to not follow the rules, but not for the states of Michigan and Florida? This man and his followers have no shame.
Wtf? How is this about Obama, as opposed to, say, Hillary or Edwards or, hell, Lyndon LaRouche?
I am sick to death of whining from Michigan and Floridians about being disenfranchised. If you're upset, vote out the yahoos in your state legislatures who engineered this clusterf**k in the face of repeated warnings, and even begging, for them to not do it.
Both states' party delegates agreed to the primary scheduling rules back when they were set, in early 2007, they agreed that there would be consequences for breaking those rules and then, in the face of those rules, their legislators decided to gamble that their states were so important that they could elbow their way up to the front of the line and get away with it. Michigan? Got a problem? take it out on Karl Levin, your governor and your legislators. Florida, got a problem? Take it out on your Republican majority and the Democrats who could have saved your primary if they'd had the cojones to fight them on the schedule rather than winking, nodding and smirking their way to this disaster.
And as long as I'm ranting, fballfn? I'm going to assume for now that you're a real person rather than just some random troll and give you a word of advice. If an email says "send this to everyone you know," everything in it is BULLSHIT, okay? There are no exceptions to this rule, even if it comes from your dear Aunt Fanny who's never lied to you. So how about you look up any new emails you get on snopes.com before you make an ass of yourself on the Internet and then go get your news from, say, a real news source, like, say a news paper's website and/or some reputable blogs. (Yes, first time I've ever shouted here.)
Donald from Hawaii wrote on January 14, 2008 10:21 AM:
"Obama is the choice of the Middle East check out muslims for Obama 08 website. I question his loyalty to America. He turns his back to the flag. Why? The media lets him skate that issue."
What a coincidence! As I read your post, the local oldies channel played "Dueling Banjoes".
bvd wrote on January 14, 2008 10:24 AM:Jan, do I know what the meaning of semantics is? Well, that depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
Correct, the teachers union has not formally endorsed anyone. But:
"The association’s deputy executive director, Debbie Cahill, for instance, was a founding member of Senator Clinton’s Nevada Women’s Leadership Council." (NY Times, Jan. 12)
"Dan Hart, chief political consultant to the state teachers union, has run [Rory] Reid’s campaigns in the past and is currently an unpaid adviser to him." (Las Vegas Sun, Jan 13).
JAN: Rory Reid is Hillary's Nevada campaign Chairman ("The origin of the lawsuit is unclear. Hart, the political consultant, said he took the idea to the teachers union, but would not say who brought it to his attention." - LV Sun).
"The other plaintiffs are Dwayne Chesnut, John Cahill, Vicky and John Birkland, and Patricia Montgomery.
Some of them were active backers of Sen. Dina Titus’ 2006 bid for governor. Titus, of Las Vegas, has endorsed Clinton." (LV Sun)
“Not for us to decide,” said Rory Reid, Clinton’s state chairman, in an e-mail to the Sun. “We just want the process to be fair.”
No, of course the Clinton campaign has not directly filed the lawsuit. But their surrogates have done so on their behalf. Now they - and you - can honestly say her campaign didn't file the lawsuit. But the lawsuit is being filed by a union that has prominent leaders involved in the Clinton campaign.
Look - the chief political consultant to both the union and Hillary's Nevada Campaign Chairman is behind the filing. Explain to me how that happens without the Clinton campaign being involved.
Liam wrote on January 14, 2008 10:35 AM:Have they ever filed complaints about the absentee ballots, early voting, or vote by mail, that some states allow. Does that not give even a bigger advantage to some than the arrangement that the Teachers are whining about. At least those who cast votes at the sites in Nevada will actually attend.
What the hell is the matter with the Teachers. Aren't they supposed to be the one's who set a good example of civic duty, to the children, instead of this kind of petty partisan politics. Teachers, go vote, if it is important to you, and stop trying to impede others from voting.
Tapper wrote on January 14, 2008 10:37 AM:ALL you need to know about Obama and his supporters:
They feel comfortable, while calling HRC a racist, to call a Black man an Uncle Tom for daring to disagree.
And, if Obama doesn't win the nomination, they will take their marbles and back 10,000 Years In Iraq McCain.
Oh yeah, they openly consort with and support openly homophobic ministers.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
Yeah, Obama is SOOOOOO Progressive!
Such a welcome CHANGE!
Did I mention that he's a lying fraud?
Donna, on your points. Point 1 is the likely outcome. Courts are loath to get involved into these types of election games, especially at the last minute. Now nevada is known as the wild, wild west in legal circles, so anything is possible and it depends on the judge. However, odds are option one is the result, or at a minimum the court allows the case to proceed, but does not interfere with the election.
On point 2, won't happen in a million years. Even if there are depos, none of the clinton people will cop to anything. Think about it. All the garbage that has been going on the last two weeks or so by clinton people and the clintons themselves. There is no way that they would leave a trail that could be discovered. They can always deny any involvement, which they are doing and play the victim and all the other bs. Just like mr. bill didn't say that obama's campaign was a fairy tale or h.clinton didn't diss king or clinton supporters all over the place are just fomenting false racial sterotypes without any input from the clinton campaign. Bullsh*t. Its all parsing and triangulation (lies). I am so sick of these people, I don't even want to hear their garbage anymore.
Bupalos wrote on January 14, 2008 10:52 AM:--"Everybody wants what's good for themselves. That's not surprising or even wrong. It's just politics."
I think that should be the motto of the Clinton campaign. Honestly, the lowering of discourse and ideals that characterize the Clintons is pretty breathtaking. Good luck to you.
audit the polls wrote on January 14, 2008 10:54 AM:Unbelievable. The country hates Bush and his party. Yet we are allowing big media to steer this election toward the only 2 democrats who can lose.
bvd wrote on January 14, 2008 10:54 AM:ParkSloper - You've just justified anything to win. Thanks for encouraging us to be Republicans.
Gore's loss in 2000 is to a good extent due to Bill Clinton. It was his lying and cheating that turned people off. (Yes, Fla was stolen but it should never have been that close). Hillary will turn off more voters with these methods than she'll gain. I may be one of them - I've never failed to vote Dem for president in 32 years. This may be my first time if she keeps this crap up.
By the way, I lived in Park Slope for almost 20 years. Finally got priced out and had to move. Too many people came in who had no scruples about gouging rents, running up real estate prices, gentrifying everything. All politics is indeed local.
hazel wrote on January 14, 2008 10:59 AM:Joe: I don't know if you have had your question answered yet, but the NEA, one of the two teacher's unions, has already endorsed Clinton. Many employees of that union felt that it was a mistake to endorse anyone this early on, but they did and now they have a vested interest in seeing her prevail. So, indeed, Clinton might not have anything to do with this (I'm not quite willing to take her at her word), but nevertheless, the Union has a political interest in seeing her do well. Hence, the lawsuit.
audit the polls wrote on January 14, 2008 11:02 AM:We still have 99% of the voters to go. Don't let big media run this thing.
Kathy Sammons wrote on January 14, 2008 11:12 AM:I find it rather hypocritical that Senator Obama is crying dirty tricks when the man used similar court challenges to knock out his competitors in his first political race. Anyone who lives in Chicago knows all about this.
Hillary Clinton is not the first woman he's tried to step over on his way to the top.
jeff wrote on January 14, 2008 11:15 AM:People, you're getting it all wrong. Look at Clinton's RESULTS. 35 years worth, she says.
1. Eight years as First Lady. Failed health care plan. Couldn't get it done.
2. Supported the war, mouthing Republican talking points so she would triangulate herself as strong on defense, then blames others for her gullibility. Was against it while she voted for it and repeated Bush's talking points, now she's against it but still voting for it. Nothing to see here, nothing to see.
3. Voted to give Bush authority to make war AGAIN with a resolution against IRAN. How gullible can she be? Oh, she's against war with Iran but giving Bush another blank check.
4. 35 years of blaming the media while still conveniently manipulating it to their ends. 35 years represents the status quo, not change. Remember, this is the one who talked about a right-wing conspiracy, but she's doing a good swiftboating of Obama right now.
5. Voted for the Patriot Act TWICE in 2001 and 2006. Where's the opposition, as opposed to political pandering?
6. Had her minions sue to not allow Las Vegas hotel workers site-specific caucus sites two days after they pledged support to Obama. No moral legitimacy to right wing tactics.
SOME RECORD.
I'm tired of being outraged by swiftboating and vote rigging. Fine, if the Cliintonistas want to stoop this low, SEND A MESSAGE: volunteer and give a contribution to the Obama campaign: http://www.BarackObama.com
Michael A wrote on January 14, 2008 9:04 AM:
See this is the problem with the clintons. They are so dirty it really is disgusting and when they do something nasty, they throw stones at the other person claiming see they allegedly did the same dirty trick. Well, lets just pull everyone down in the mud to wallow with the clintons.
You are right Michael this is the problem with the Clintons. It is almost as if we forgot and now we are being flung back into a time warp of their partisan bickering and divisive politics. See the truth is the Clintons wrote the textbook on this type of politicing. The GOP followed the Clintons rules just like Cheney followed Hillary with her closed door policy trying to ram through healthcare only his was the energy policy and he did not have to go to court like Hillary plus he was successful and her actions were a collossal failure.
But let's not forget these are not Rovian tactics...they are Clintonian...and just in case folks have forgotten what the Clinton campaign textbook rules are...here is the strategy again to remind you of what happened in the 90s and we are experiencing ALL over again thanks to HILL and BILL:
ANDERA - Admit nothing, deny everything, redirect accusations.
----------------------------------------
Step 1: Slander your opponent
Step 2: Wait and see if you're called on the slander
Step 3: If called on the slander, decide whether you've offended a group you need to win the election
Step 4: If the answer to step 3 is "yes, we need that group," deny Step 1 ever happened.
Step 5: Hope nobody realizes what you just did
Step 6: If someone does realize what you did, see step 1 (slander them)
dhonig -
Thank you for your thoughtful response to my question. Interesting that some of the aspects being challenged may have been new as of October. Didn't know that. Still, of course, the big question is "why now?" (not Oct, Nov, Dec, or earlier this month) And I agree with you that it's hardball litigation (I'm also an attorney with 20+ years in litigation so, yeah, I've seen it many, many times .....).
BUT litigation to what purpose? There's usually something, some goal, in mind when these hardball tactics are employed. The only possible effects of the lawsuit I can see are 1) shutting out the votes that would have been made at those at-large caucuses or, failing that, 2) putting off the whole caucus until the court can decide. Who would most likely benefit by those outcomes? Not the teachers; they can easily caucus because it's on Saturday. I think you have to look at Clinton, which of course doesn't mean she's behind it but suggests that at a minimum it's being done for her benefit. (The culinary union whose members would be most affected endorsed Obama, and a loss for her in Nev. which is at least possible, would be devastating.)
And there's another aspect to this: I suspect you'll agree with me that the hardball litigation tactic of springing a last-minute surprise to, as you say, force a decision without time for reflection is one that is used extensively by some lawyers and some firms and not at all, or rarely, by others. Part of an attorney's, or a client's, MO, you might say.
Considering that part of it, I'm again brought back to Clinton. In the NH primary, at the very last minute before the voting, her campaign sent out e-mails and mailers to voters that contained distortions, or worse, about Obama's record/proposals on some hot topics: a woman's right to choice and Social Security. (No question about it coming directly from her - imprint and all) Once again, that left no time for reflection or research by the voter (especially those less educated, which is where she won big) and no time for a response from Obama. (Actually his campaign did try clarifying phone calls ... a move that was challenged by Clinton campaign as being in violation of NH law - it wasn't.)
So ... if one considers who benefits and who typically uses this particular tactic then despite the absence of proof, the whole thing certainly points to the Clinton campaign.
(I understand there is also significant overlap between individuals who are strong Clinton supporters and those high up in the union and the law firms involved - but of course have no first hand knowledge of that.)
Jeremy wrote on January 14, 2008 11:23 AM:Wow. Hillary's haters are out in force bashing Obama, but they have nothing to say about her supporters' efforts to keep working folks from voting, just a bunch of sleazy innuendo. Is Karl Rove running her campaign? No. But close. It's Mark Penn, a union busting mercenary. I understand Hillary did well with low-income women in New Hampshire. I hope the truth gets out. When Robert Reich, a good progressive if ever there was one, was Labor Secretary the Clintons let union-busting lobbyists like Penn write policy.
People need to know that Hillary is pursuing power at any cost. She'll disenfranchise workers (or stand idly by while her surrogates do it) if that's what it takes. And she'll use the most divisive political strategies if she thinks it will diminish the Feb 5 impact of an Obama win in SC or Nevada. Pay close attention to the game they're playing so that you don't get played, and let's all be very careful about how we respond to the latest political gambit from the Clintons.
ParkSloper wrote on January 14, 2008 12:23 PM:To BVD:
Republicans have an excellent winning record. Perhaps liberals that are interested in implementing policy should be more willing to adopt tactics that are proven to win elections. Politics has always been dirty.
IMHO, Gore's loss in 2000 was primarily due to the media's overt hate. In fact, it is similar to the media's overt hate of Hillary (please see Chris Matthews). If you believe that the media will not turn on Obama, you are sadly mistaken.
I am sad to see your reluctance to vote for Hillary. Like many others, I would prefer a campaign based on the merits of proposed government policy. Unfortunately, this is very far from reality. The reality is that the Republicans and the media will focus on dramatic narratives. It is time that the Democrats got with it. The country needs to be sparred from more Republican-led government.
I hope that you enjoy your new digs. Park Slope renters have been major victims of the run-up in property values. As long as Wall Street continues to set new highs in compensation, the trend will continue. I may need to move soon as well when my long-term lease is up.
In short, I will be supporting the candidate most likely to win and support liberal causes. I am not looking for moral leadership.
Edwards for President wrote on January 14, 2008 1:08 PM:Don't vote for the lobbyists. Go Edwards. The only one who plans to DO anything for us. The other two will spend their term paying back their corporate donors, like Murdoch.
CalD wrote on January 14, 2008 1:54 PM:Obama: Clinton Backers Didn't File Any Lawsuits Before I Won Culinary Union's Endorsement
No, but I've got a feeling other Obama backers might have started feeling a little litigious themselves if the endorsement had gone to Clinton or Edwards. In fact if it had gone to Edwards, as some apparently expected, I would not rule out that there might have been two suits filed.
First Read seems to think that this probably had a target painted on it too. Marc Armbinder observes that the endorsement may not actually be as "dispositive" as it sounds. (Odd choice of words.)
referen wrote on January 14, 2008 3:07 PM:Joe wrote: Please state exactly what is the nature of the ties you are alleging. Whom? What sort of ties?
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan/12/voting-stripa-no-no-suit-says/
"The association’s deputy executive director, Debbie Cahill, for instance, was a founding member of Senator Clinton’s Nevada Women’s Leadership Council."
"If you dig deeper into who the "plantiffs" actually are, they are (almost) all Executive members of the Clark County Democratic Central Committee and therefore also members of the Nevada State Democratic State Central Committee."
"Vicki Burkland is Second Vice-Chair and Dwayne Chestnut is Third Vice Chair of the CCCC which also puts them on the NSDP SCC.
These are NOT your garden variety people but Nevada Democratic Party insiders suing their own party!"
"The plaintiffs were made fully aware of this on 11/3/2007 a their State Central Committee meeting and said absolutely nothing."
This is nothing but a shameless attempt at voter suppression by Hillary Clinton.
Anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 4:27 PM:NyT's "The Caucus"
The Most Dangerous Place to Be in America
Between the Clintons and Elective Office
Kathy Sammons wrote on January 14, 2008 5:40 PM:
Please google Obama and Alice Palmer. I find it outrageous that he is crying dirty tricks when he started his political career by taking out one of Chicago's most beloved and respected civil rights leaders. Palmer is just the first woman Obama stepped over to get to the top.
Justin Tyme wrote on January 14, 2008 8:43 PM:Show me a presidential candidate who will promise to pursue war crimes charges against Bush and Cheney or hand them over to the Hague and I'll vote for them.
Until we show that we are not F-ing around, none of these clowns will understand that in American power is supposed to be in the hands of the people, not the corporations and the wealthy elite.
Evan wrote on January 15, 2008 12:42 AM:I think it is no "fluke" that Hillary won in New Hampshire. She pulled two stunts with perfect timing; there were the tears, and there was the "Iron my shirt". Both were calculated to activate the feminist vote out of anger rather than substance.
Poor Hillary, those nasty men made her cry. Poor Hillary, some nasty man wants to make her do housework.
Except I think both incidents were staged and represent manipulation of the most debased kind. I don't think such stunts will work too many times before even the dim-witted mainstream press realizes they are being used.
Hillary is running a very nasty campain thru surrogates and proxies. So the mud gets flung, but her hands stay clean -- sort of. The votes get suppressed (how very Republican), but her hands stay clean -- sort of.
Hillary got one chance to improve health care in America when he husband put her in charge. She blew it so bad the entire issue remained radioactive for a decade. Now she wants another crack at it. She sold out to big Pharma a long time ago. I want somebody honest and competent to fix health care; I want John Edwards. I'd settle for Barack Obama. But if Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee, I'll vote for John McCain or stay home.
PL wrote on January 15, 2008 11:56 AM:If Obama is so principled about his opposition to the war, why does he continue to vote to fund it? (Pretty much similar to Clinton.) He has not shown leadership in the Senate on this issue so why can we expect leadership if he is President? He's had a great chance to show his stuff as a Senator yet I'm still waiting . . . . The Republicans are not going to back down when there is a Democrat in the White House. We need a fighter, it's naive to think otherwise.
Mark C. Eades wrote on January 15, 2008 3:30 PM:The lawsuit filed by Clinton allies in Nevada against planned "at-large" caucusing Jan. 19 on the Las Vegas Strip is beginning to look a lot like voter suppression. As we know, the plan was drawn up and approved unanimously early last year by the Nevada Democratic Party leadership, with input from the presidential campaigns, to enable caucusing by Strip workers unable to leave work to caucus in their home precincts. Indeed the plan's creators include several of those who are now plaintiffs against it. What changed their minds? Barack Obama's endorsement Jan.9 by the 60,000-member Las Vegas Culinary Workers' Union changed their minds. When the plan was approved, Hillary Clinton was presumed to be the "inevitable" Democratic frontrunner. Iowa changed all that, and Obama's subsequent endorsement by the culinary workers has brought a Clinton win in Nevada into serious question. Since it is largely members of this union who would be caucusing in the casinos, the plan is clearly no longer in Clinton's best interests. Hence the lawsuit against the plan, filed just two days after the Obama endorsement and scarcely a week before the caucus by Clinton allies from the leadership of the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), on the grounds that it would be unfair to workers in other areas. Why didn't they think it was unfair earlier? After all, the plan was approved nearly a year ago in the very name of fairness, to enable participation by those who would otherwise be unable to caucus. The answer is simple: Because the lawsuit has nothing whatsoever to do with fairness, and everything to do with stacking the deck in favor of Hillary Clinton. The Clintons themselves are not official parties to the suit, but both Hillary and Bill Clinton have spoken in support of it despite the fact that their campaign and others were included in the at-large caucus plan from its inception. They, like their friends in the NSEA, have had more than ample time to consider and reconsider the plan, but appear to have deemed it unfair only since the culinary workers endorsed Obama. While the judge in this case obviously has every reason in the world to throw it out of court, I don't expect that even if it prevails the culinary workers will allow it to prevent their members' caucusing. In fact I wouldn't be at all surprised to see chartered buses from the union shuttling members between the Strip and their home precincts to caucus, a lot of pressure on Strip employers to comply, and a lot of anger at the Clintons and their allies for this seedy attempt to change the rules at the last minute. The whole affair seems likely indeed to do the Clintons far more harm than good in Nevada; and as we know, what happens in Vegas doesn't always stay in Vegas.
