Pro-Obama Union's Spanish Radio Ad In Nevada: "Hillary Clinton Is Shameless"
The pro-Obama UNITE-HERE union — the parent organization of the Culinary Workers Union — is running a Spanish radio ad in Nevada that lambastes Hillary Clinton, calling her "shameless." The subject of the ad is the failed lawsuit filed by Clinton supporters, against the special caucus sites created on the Las Vegas Strip in order to help Culinary members participate. Hillary declined to condemn the suit, and Bill Clinton publicly defended it.
"Senator Obama is defending our right to vote. Senator Obama wants our votes," the ad says, according to Ben Smith. "He respects our votes, our community, and our people. Senator Obama's campaign slogan is 'Si Se Puede.' Vote for a president who respects us, and who respects our right to vote."
Comments (67)
green heron wrote on January 17, 2008 11:34 PM:Hillary is scared.
obamahype wrote on January 17, 2008 11:35 PM:Shouldn't obama condemn this.. I mean.. I remember in Iowa Mr. Ethics was screaming about how this shouldn't happen and even had Senator Edwards tell his supporters to stop advertising on his behalf.
something tells me he wont.. he will turn the other way when it comes to getting elected.
green heron wrote on January 17, 2008 11:35 PM:Bill is gonna have a coronary.
Bill R. wrote on January 17, 2008 11:41 PM:Hillary and Bill are shameless. Voter suppression of Hispanic culinary workers... a disqualifier for the presidency in my view.
Mister, Mister, Mister Ken wrote on January 17, 2008 11:41 PM:Why should Obama condemn something that's entirely true? The Clintons are shameless for failing to condemn (and in Bill's case for defending) an effort to deny the vote to hard-working Democrats in the Nevada caucus. "Shame" is exactly the word for it.
sammiemauroney wrote on January 17, 2008 11:42 PM:hmm. 527 expenditure for me, but not for thee. If anyone is shameless, its Senator Obama.
Obama criticized Edwards for saying that he doesn't approve of 527s, while at the same time not disavowing a group, Alliance for a New America . . . "You've got these outside groups that are helping out candidates and it's a way of getting around the campaign finance laws. . . . [Y]ou can't say yesterday you don't believe in 'em, and today you have three quarters of a million dollars being spent for you. You can't just talk the talk. The easiest thing in the world is to talk about change during election time."
If Obama really had guts his campaign should have produced the ad themselves.
I will vote for McCain over him in a heartbeat.
As an Obama supporter, I really hope he condemns this ad. I mean even if the PRO-EDWARDS 527 ads were true, Edwards still asked them to stop running on his behalf. Even if these are true, if Obama really means what he says, he should atleast condemn them or ask them to stop running them.
This concerns me greatly.
Tommy wrote on January 17, 2008 11:46 PM:The fact of the matter is, the failed lawsuit is indicative of Hillary's willingness to do anything to become president, even if it means disenfranchising a segment of the population.There is not one principal she woulndt compromise, not one, to brcome president.After all she is entitled to it.
maavelous wrote on January 17, 2008 11:49 PM:Has anyone noticed how angry Bill Clinton is of late? This is worriesome. The man has a heart condition. Why all the anger? Does he feel America owes him another eight years? America amended the constitution Bill. You had your turn. Work on your golf game.
eric wrote on January 18, 2008 12:01 AM:This crap is tearing the party apart. It's ok, though, who wants to preside over the nasy recession that is coming.
I am starting to prepare to lose in november.
Daniel wrote on January 18, 2008 12:16 AM:A new poll from the California primary has Clinton leading by only 5% against Obama in what will surely be THE battle of February 5th.
G Davis wrote on January 18, 2008 12:17 AM:maavelous wrote on January 17, 2008 11:49 PM:
Has anyone noticed how angry Bill Clinton is of late? This is worriesome. The man has a heart condition. Why all the anger? Does he feel America owes him another eight years? America amended the constitution Bill. You had your turn. Work on your golf game.
You must be old enough to have watched Bill in his prime maavelous...I know I am and I have surely noticed a distinct difference in him.
Before he was always cool as a cucumber...that's part of what infuriated so many people. Nothing seemed to get the better of him.
But man...he's gonna blow soon if he doesn't back up a step. I won't vote for his wife, but I wish no ill on any human being and I'd hate to see him die because of an election.
That said, when was this ad released? Has Obama's campaign had time to respond?
Also, anyone understand Spanish well enough to listen to it and give their interpretation of it here?
sue wrote on January 18, 2008 12:18 AM:Hillary's supporters basically sued a union because they didn't endorse her and, in the process, tried to stop them from voting for her opponent.
If that's not shameless behavior, I don't know what is. Sometimes the truth hurts.
George Bush used voter supression tactics in the 2000 election and beat Gore by just over 500 votes. Democrats shouldn't use those same tactics, especially against other democrats.
Besides, this isn't the first time the've done this. Hillary's supporters run the state of NH, and they were throwing Obama's supporters out of the voting stations and interfering with their get out the vote efforts.
Hillary is long overdue for a bitch-slap.
twaneeshakwan,
I don't think Obama should tell the union what to do and by the way, isn't Clinton shameless anyway? Her hypocrisy on voter suppression? When it's republicans doing it, it is ok but when it's democrats no big deal. I am tired of this liberal/progressive hypocrisy, myself including.
Obama has nothing to apologize for, the Clinton campaign and their allies should actually apologize for trying to rid union workers from voting!
The thing about Bill is his putting. The man cannot hole a putt. That's why he has to cheat on his score.
Similarly, Bill had trouble with the caucus system. Hillary seems to be having the same problem. The only solution was to deprive the dishwashers of Las Vegas of a their chance to vote. Unfortunately, Wopner told him to stuff it up his pasty cracker ass.
While Clinton does lack the human capacity for shame . . . Is it acceptable for the union to point out her disability. Don't the handicapped deserve respect and acceptance?
Davidson wrote on January 18, 2008 12:38 AM:Well, what the merits of lawsuit was that the culinary union had an unfair advantage because they were the only ones allowed to caucus at their place of work. Both the Clintons spoke out against caucuses even before Iowa, but this lawsuit doesn't look good so it was just foolish for them to have done it, especially knowing what little chance they had of succeeding. C'mon, with just days to change everything?
Davidson wrote on January 18, 2008 12:39 AM:sue,
Read the lawsuit. They still would've been able to caucus, just not at their place of work. Basically , they would've had to caucus like every other person, group. I agree that it was a foolish move, but it was not for the reasons you listed.
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 1:02 AM:The ad is called payback! The lawsuit never had merit or sense; this is call judgement!!!
pacc wrote on January 18, 2008 1:06 AM:More sleazy gutter politics from his fraudulency O-Bomb-A.
blackstar wrote on January 18, 2008 1:10 AM:oh pacc, you're so irrelevant.
but at least this ad gives the Nevada suit story more attention, which it very much deserves and has been lacking.
twaneeshakwan,
As I remember, Edwards said he could not communicate, even to tell them to stop, with that 527 group who ran ads on his behalf, as such would constitute coordination and be afoul of the FEC.
Do you have a link that says otherwise?
frankly0 wrote on January 18, 2008 1:14 AM:So this ad basically says that Hillary shows no respect to an ethnic group, Hispanics, the Obama campaign refuses to denounce such an explicit, nationality baiting ad, and Obama supporters are just cool with it all?
You Obama supporters really are pieces of work, aren't you?
It's impossible not to despise you. You simply have no morality. And neither does the Obama campaign.
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 1:17 AM:
I think everyone is missing what the Clintons are doing here: free publicity.
They are masters at it. Besides the numerous talk show appearances, they manufacture a lot of free press for themselves and frame the election in their terms.
NH: Story "Bill Clinton loses it at Dartmouth." Requires all news stations to show over and over his smearing of Obama. Because the story is about Bill Clinton losing control, news outlets don't feel responsible for doing any fact checking.
Afterwards: "Fairy tale" causing controversy. Requires all news stations to show over and over his smearing of Obama. No fact checking required again.
NV: "Union sues over caucus sites." Gets everyone talking about how Obama has an "unfair" advantage. Even if they lose NV, they'll have won the expectations war.
NV: "Bill Clinton fights with reporter." Requires all stations to show over and over again Bill claiming (wrongly) that workers on the strip will have 5x the impact. Once again, setting expectations, and no fact checking required.
All day today, MSNBC was running a story "Hillary mails flyer attacking Obama's Social Security plan." They then showed a clip of... Hillary attacking Obama's social security plan. But the story, you see, was that she was attacking it, not the attack itself. So of course there was no fact checking, or rebuttal from Obama's campaign.
It's all about controlling the message. They put on enough of a show to get tons of free time to air their message.
I'm cool with it. Let's all be cool with it. Be cool.
RandyH wrote on January 18, 2008 1:27 AM:Obama should not condemn his union supporters any more than Hillary is condemning hers. She is not, by the way. Her supporting 527 (AFSCME) is spending 10 times what Obama's is to send out fliers and buy this (annoying) TV ad which runs all the time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABjnGz4MD00
At least Obama's union supporters (Unite-Here) are truthful in their spanish-language radio ad. The Clinton machine really is trying to suppress their vote in a HUGE way. I say this as a Nevada resident watching it all unfold. Hillary draws small events full of white women. Obama draws HUGE events full of the most diverse crowds I's ever seen. He truly is the man of the people. I will caucus for him on Saturday.
And yes, Hillary & Bill are scared to death. That's what their Rovian tactics get them in the post-Bush/Rove era. We're not stupid.
blackstar wrote on January 18, 2008 1:31 AM:frankly0,
you're living in fantasy land. anyone who looks at this race and first says to themselves "the Obama campaign is utterly immoral in their tactics!" needs shock therapy.
but you're not doing that. you're viewing every individual piece of news through an Obama-hatred lens, which will always bring you to the same conclusion you keep drawing. i used to think that as a general rule, "progressives" had better critical thinking and fact-assessment skills than conservatives, but some posters here and at HuffPo are really making me question that.
green heron wrote on January 18, 2008 1:43 AM:This whole election is about conservatism. America is a VERY conservative country. Your average "liberal" residing in a college town or big city has a car, a stock portfolio, a similarly responsible spouse, etc. He or she is no radical. He or she is no Marxist rebel with machine gun ready to storm this racist power structure. He or she is safe. He or she wants to return to the comfortable nineties when Bill and Monica were the worst of our problems. That's the appeal of Hillary--the only person in the world with no sense of humor.
roo_P wrote on January 18, 2008 2:24 AM:If this is a 527, it should absolutely be expected that Obama will denounce it and request that they refrain from advertising for him (just like he did with Vote Hope) since that has been his position in this race.
If it is not a 527, the situation is somewhat more ambiguous because his opposition to 527's is specifically due to the "untraceability" of their funding. Unions' financial reporting, on the other hand, is heavily regulated.
I would expect to see a statement of discouragement from him directly in that case too, though.
Keith wrote on January 18, 2008 2:49 AM:This ad is not from a 527. This is from Unite HERE. Union dollars being spent on this expenditure. If this was a 527 and it was distorting HRC's position, I think his campaign would like hypocritical if it didn't speak out loud and clear on those two points.
And let's be clear here, they are, I think rightfully so, pissed. Sure this ad is raw, but its rawness is its power. Clinton supporters tried to disenfranchise them with the lawsuit filed on the proverbial 11th hour and the Clintons were at best ambigiuous (HRC) and at worst supportive of the lawsuit (WJC). So for the HRC campaign (and its supporters) to lash out at Obama's camapaign, aptly demonstrates, yet again, that the HRC campaign cannot or will not accept responsibility for its own actions.
roo_P wrote on January 18, 2008 2:52 AM:Keith,
Thanks for the clarification!
I have to agree, the voters themselves have every right to be enraged.
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 4:05 AM:BILLARY=Karl Rove
Obama=RFK
Oh, puleeze. If Culinary Workers had remained neutral their leaders would have been free to strong arm the workers without the huge spotlight shining on them.
The teachers union didn't endorse a candiate, the Culinary Workers did. That was a miscalculation and now there's gonna be a whole lotta people in those special caucus sites looking for any signs of intimidation.
The sites may have been designed for the CWU, but they are open to ALL shift workers in their immediate vicinity.
Looks like Barry can't even get the Chicago Style politics right, just think what this Bush-clone (or is it Reagan clone now) will do in the White House.
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 6:11 AM:What is the issue here? Hillary Clinton and her mean machine are shameless, English, Spanish or any other language.
Anyone logical, truthful person can look at the facts and understand the dynamics of the Caucus legal challenge in Neveda. The rules for fine with Hillary until the largest union in the state endorsed Obama. The next day, Hillary operatives in the teachers union launched the legal challenge.
The Clintons are doing what the do best with the new added arsenal of scuzzy Rove-style campaigning: divide the nation so there is no clear majority and hope you can pull out the election. Pit Blacks against Whites, men against women, older adults against youth, union members against each other. Strife, division, partisan warfare, gridlock, status quo and corporate governance.
Hillary Clinton is shameless. She wants to be president at any cost. Our nation needs to unite and move forward, not continue the Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton plan for America = deep divisions to protect greedy, unchecked corporate profiteering.
Paul wrote on January 18, 2008 6:16 AM:So let's see, if AFSCME is running a LOT of ads for Hillary, Obama is supposed to unilaterally disarm and condemn a much smaller number running in his favor? That sounds fair.
Two months ago, I was prepared to support whichever Democrat won the primaries. But the Clintons (plurual) conduct has so appalled me that I now just don't know - if McCain gets the REpublican nomination, I may end up pulling it for him.
Yes, his positions are different than mine. But integrity matters!
paul wrote on January 18, 2008 7:01 AM:Why don't you guys just shut down this site and link to HRC's web page instead? It would be more honest and help repair the credibility that TPM is losing by the day.
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 7:49 AM:From the posts above, one but can only conclude the Obama supporters are shameless. I wonder where all these nasty hatred against Hillary comes from. Grow up! It is politics. You can love Obama but hating Hillary gets your no where!
toM wrote on January 18, 2008 7:53 AM:All Hillary haters or even those that don't like her are sexist misogynist pigs!!!!
That's sarcasm of course but why can't the Cult of Hillary be this honest. Their brand of fanaticism fits in with W.
mari wrote on January 18, 2008 7:56 AM:Shameless is probably one of the best descriptions I've heard of her coming from the mainstream. Her and Bill should both be ashamed of their lies and their negative attacks and dirty tactics...they have a lot to be ashamed of, but they are without shame, because they don't care about anything but winning at all costs. So by definition they hit it right on the head: Shameless.
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 8:05 AM:Two more shameless obama supporters followed my post above. Do you guys understand how silly your hatred against Hillary really is? Does she kill your first born, take away your lunch money, or get somebody to run away with your girl/boy friend? Get a life and grow up!
Take a look at this free artilce from TNR:
Washington Diarist
Miracle Man
Leon Wieseltier, The New Republic Published: Wednesday, January 30, 2008
So far the rocket-burst of Barack Obama has verified that Hillary Clinton has no obvious claim on the presidency; and that liberals, after seven lean years, are happy to lose their heads; and that excitement is exciting. Obama is certainly rinsing American politics of its over-ideologized and over- professionalized (they often go together) lassitude; his campaign has all the ardor of an insurgency but none of the anger. In November it may even be an honor to vote for him. But his astounding rise imposes a certain obligation of skeptical calm. Change: fine. A new generation: fine. A new politics: fine. It is all fine, and it is all contentless. Inspiration without content is a prelude to alienation. Newness is the oldest pitch in American politics. And I am a little sick of hope. ("I do not believe in miracles," says Herodias in Wilde's play. "I have seen too many.") Also I have a queasy recollection of 1975 and the electrifying emergence of Jimmy Carter out of nowhere, in all his progressive pristinity, in a country made torpid by a war and an era of low politics. Why not the best? Skepticism is bad form in a bandwagoning moment. Yet I have a few doubts. I will gladly be persuaded out of them, but not until I record them.
For a start, he talks too much. This is not a quantitative objection, but a qualitative one. There was a revealing moment in the debate at St. Anselm's College, when Clinton unleashed what was supposed to be her rhetorical masterstroke: "Words are not actions." This provoked Obama to explain that words are actions: "The truth is actually words do inspire. Words do help people get involved... . Don't discount that power ..." Of course he is right. For too long the language of American politics has been dead and debased. The refulgence of Obama's oratory, with its passages of re-moralizing lyricism, is a political and even a cultural gain. Yet an argument about the centrality of eloquence for politics from Barack Obama makes me uneasy, in the way that an argument about the centrality of private-sector money for government from Michael Bloomberg makes me uneasy. I worry that it is most of what he has and most of what he knows. When, as in the debates, Obama cannot resort to his silken swelling sentences, he seems pretty conventional. The closer he comes to the stuff of policy, the swifter the magic is gone. Perhaps policy is just not magical. Still, he seems more prepared for the aria of politics than for the recitative of government.
This has something to do with "experience," the other moronic mantra of this race. Plainly experience is no promise of wisdom or success. We know this from, well, experience. But I must admit that when, at the St. Anselm's debate, Obama began a sentence with "As commander-in-chief I will ... " I shuddered. There were about ten years in my life as a citizen when I would not have so shuddered. They were the years--a second youth, historically speaking--between the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of the World Trade Center. Since I am once again a national security and foreign policy voter--nobody cares equally about everything--I am unenthusiastic about the prospect of electing a president from the Illinois state legislature. How, really, can Obama's years in the United States Senate be described as distinguished? There was no time, at least for that. And then there is the disjunction between his inexperience and his assuredness. Obama's popularity is owed in no small measure to the charisma of his confidence in himself. He has a redeemer's gait, and enters a hall like he has come to save it. This leaves me cold; and I was dismayed by his reference, in his concession speech in New Hampshire, to skeptics as cynics: a familiar feature of the righteousness of the candidate who beat him. But people believe in people who believe in themselves, and Obama's belief in himself is devout, innate, and of Seinfeldian proportions. I hope it is educable, though I dread the ordeal of yet another president's "education."
When Al Gore chose Joe Lieberman as his running mate, a shul-mate remarked that it was a great day for the Jews in America that Gore had the courage to do so. I told him that, while I was tribally exhilarated by what Gore had done, he would not have picked Lieberman if the polling had ruled against it. It was a great day for the Jews in America, in other words, because courage was no longer needed. I hear a lot about Obama as a "post-racial" candidate, and I am not sure what this means. I understand that he is a hybridity idol, Kansas and Kenya and all that--"our first Benetton candidate," as a friend admiringly remarked. But Obama cannot make history as the first black candidate for president, or as the first black president, and be post-racial. Last week he was not post-racial: Iowa was post-racial, and so was New Hampshire, and so may our improving country continue to be. Obama is certainly not regarded post- racially by the post-racialists. "When an African American man is leading a juggernaut to the White House," a vibrating David Brooks asked, "do you want to be the one to stand up and say No?" Well, yes, if "no" needs to be said, and if we are in a place beyond race. This condescension is not Obama's fault; it is hard to balance one's elation at the possibility of such an American apotheosis with one's refusal to regard Obama as the representative of his race. We should vote for him because of "his face," Andrew Sullivan has hotly advised, which would effect "a re-branding of America." But a president is not a logo and America is not a brand. If the consideration of race, disguised as postracialism, has the effect of abrogating the discussion of Obama's fitness for what he seeks, then we will have mistaken a good feeling for a real change, which is a characteristic American error. All this adoring talk has the consequence of making Obama stand for little more than his own identity. But every identity, even the most exotic one, is narrow, until life widens it. Nobody is adequately equipped by their origins to manage human affairs. Watching the returns the other night, and looking for a senator with a widened identity, and a passion for security, and a scruple about torture, and a decency about immigrants, and a contempt for the drug companies, and an anxiety about the environment, and a talent for candor, I was rather stirred by the one from Arizona.
In Nevada the largest interest group gets to write the rules of the election process in a way that favors their members and gives them advantages over everyone else. Barack Obama defends this rigorously and then has the nerve to claim to be against the powerful special interest having too much influence. Just like everything else about this man, this reeks of hypocrisy. If he does win the Nevada caucus we will know it was because the election was rigged in his favor. He really is the next Kennedy.
Billary wrote on January 18, 2008 8:18 AM:I am mad! They were mean to me. Send more reporters so I can whine and complain.
JoeCHI wrote on January 18, 2008 8:21 AM:"Hillary Clinton doesn't respect our people!"
One has to wonder if the Obama campaign has anything other than the race card to play when the going gets tough?
Lovey wrote on January 18, 2008 8:33 AM:Yeah the election was rigged in New Hampshire for the Clintons. She's the one Repugs want. She's easy to beat because any thinking Democrat will not vote for her under any circumstance.
These two losers are so power hungry and entrenched that even if Senator Obama should lose we've already had our win. That the Clintons have been unmasked for their lies, hypocricy and deceit is a win in my opinion. Why doesn't Bill Clinton let his wife run on her own merits instead of double-teaming Obama. Is he running for a third term?
AlwaysTipTheWaitress wrote on January 18, 2008 8:43 AM:If the shoe fits.....
Good for the Nevada unions that support Obama. The Obama people in Nevada are playing hard ball to win. Nothing wrong with that -- remember that Emily List funded mailer that demagogued Obama on Choice in New hampshire? This is quite a battle.
Let's not act like crybabies anyone.
Look, all you rabid Obama and Clinton partisans need to remember that this is typical campaign stuff.
The important goal, for all of us who are totally disgusted with the state to which the Cheney administration has rendered the nation domestically and internationally, is to get rid of the neo-fascists.
We have a real chance to not only elect a democratic president but also veto proof majorities in the senate and house, so that perhaps habeas corpus may be restored, Gitmo will be closed, balance may be brought to the USA approach to the Middle East, and the other atrocities may be reversed.
Don't get me wrong, I am under no great illusion that a democratic victory will usher in a golden era, but look at the alternatives. McCain is perhaps the most palatable to some, but that's not saying anything at all given the caliber of the other republican candidates.
So please, take a series of deep breaths and relax. There is still a long campaign ahead and many things will be done that will appall one side or the other.
katie wrote on January 18, 2008 8:54 AM:I think this commercial is pretty shameless.
TheraP wrote on January 18, 2008 8:56 AM:Thank you Chris Brown. A breath of fresh air.
Whit wrote on January 18, 2008 9:26 AM:Where is Howard Dean on this? Shouldn't the national party be clearly stating the same thing this ad is saying, regarding H. Clinton's entirely-wrong attempt to disenfranchise? Otherwise, this incident could be used in Republican advertising in the general election to pull enough Hispanics back to their fold to change the outcome in several states.
Mary wrote on January 18, 2008 10:01 AM:Chris Brown wrote:
"Look, all you rabid Obama and Clinton partisans need to remember that this is typical campaign stuff."
I know we cannot be divided as a party and expect to win in Nov. But there is an obligation felt to uphold what we have been fighting against for 8 years.
The dem outrage at not only the administraton but the republican tactics as well have had a great upsurge. You can see it all around. TPM, Olbermann are just a few examples.
We will reject Rovian spin campaign tactics and stolen elections. We are sick of half truths.
To dismiss the tactics by HRC as "typical campaign stuff" is to basically condone this kind of behaviour.
There is clearly a right way to run an ethical campaign and a wrong way. If it was just a matter of ideological differences, I would agree with you, lets not fight.
But it goes to the heart of who we are, we are not Repug "all is fair in love, war, and elections" We want a candidate who is better than that. One we can get behind and believe in.
We have spent 8 long years in the darkness, we need to thing long and hard about who can appeal to all and restore America's image around the world.
No this is not typical campaign stuff, at least not for the Democrats. Yes, the Republicans have always been slimy, even when it comes to fighting each other, but this has sank to new lows. This campaign (almost entirely Hillary lashing out at Obama) has been more despicable than even the 2004 swift boating of Kerry. At least in 2004 it was party vs party, but for Hillary (and Bill) to be so dirty, fallacious and disingenuous with their attacks on a fellow Democrat, it is definitely a new low. I would expect this from the GOP, but not Democrats, and especially not an ex-president!
Shameless indeed.
ex.regis wrote on January 18, 2008 10:07 AM:anonymous writes: "Two more shameless obama supporters followed my post above. Do you guys understand how silly your hatred against Hillary really is? Does she kill your first born, take away your lunch money, or get somebody to run away with your girl/boy friend? Get a life and grow up!"
It's easy to dislike Clinton. Consider this debate moment the Clintons claimed as a victory.
Questioner asks Obama if he would be WILLING to talk with leaders from North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and other evil nations in his first year of presidency. Obama says Yes, he would be willing, it's important to talk with your enemies. Clinton is next to respond.
I expect her to say, Damn right, I've been saying that for years (which she has) and Bush is a jerk to act so righteous. That is her position as shown in youTube videos.
Instead she says, I would never PROMISE to talk with those leaders in our first year. Talk does no good without preparation. That's what serious diplomacy is about. Later her campaign says that anyone who promises to talk with evil leaders without preparation is awfully naive.
She intimated (b) that Obama said he would PROMISE to talk in his first year when Obama said no such thing and (b) that Obama would talk without preparation when Obama said no such thing. She also stated that anyone who wanted to talk in his or her first year, her exact position, was naive.
She even convinced the mainstream media to buy in to her description
anonymous also referenced an online article in The New Republic by Leon Wieseltier. Well, as a decades long subscriber to TNR, I can tell you that Wieseltier was an unbelievably strong supporter of the war, and is almost irrational in his support of Israel. I get TNR despite, not because of him.
ChrisO wrote on January 18, 2008 10:08 AM:I agree that the Clinton campaign shouldn't have supported this suit, because it was basically unwinnable, and looks bad. But if we're going to say the teachers union, which filed the suit, is a part of the Clinton campaign, we can also say the Culinary Workers union is part of the Obama campaign. So it's accurate to call this an Obama campaign ad.
However, this isn't "voter suppression." I wish Obama supporters could let go of the loaded phrases, like racism, voter suppression and smear, to describe every move by the Clintons. No one is taking away the right for any of these casino workers to vote, and changing the caucus sites wouldn't make them any more inconvenienced than anyone else who needs to work on Saturday, or can't get a babysitter. This was clearly designed to provide the casino workers with an opportunity to caucus that is denied to other residents who may have trouble getting to a caucus site.
And if you're concerend about "vote suppression," what about the fact that these workers now have to publicly declare their political preference at their job site, in full view of their bosses and union reps? Caucuses are inherently undemocratic anyway, and even more so in this case.
ex.regis wrote on January 18, 2008 10:22 AM:ChrisO writes:"No one is taking away the right for any of these casino workers to vote, and changing the caucus sites wouldn't make them any more inconvenienced than anyone else who needs to work on Saturday, or can't get a babysitter. This was clearly designed to provide the casino workers with an opportunity to caucus that is denied to other residents who may have trouble getting to a caucus site."
Nevada was put early to give union workers, strong Democratic Party supporters, a chance to be heard early. The casinos are the largest industry in Nevada. On Saturdays, the casinos are busier than usual and those working there that day are the largest group of people working on Saturday in Nevada.
So months ago, the state and national Democratic Parties decided to create casino caucuses for exactly those reasons. I would imagine if other groups of people, associated with unions, were seriously impacted by a Saturday caucus, those groups would have been granted the same right. For example, teachers who work on Saturdays (none do).
Bill Clinton, a premiere political junkie (like us), of course knew about this agreement months ago. What bothers Obama supporters is that Bill Clinton started calling this unfair and claiming it was undemocratic (check YouTube) only AFTER the culinary union decided to support Obama a few days ago.
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 10:34 AM:You shameless Obama supporters. You should get a life. did you know the Culinary Union was thinking about endorsing Edwards long time ago? They would never have endorsed clinton because of the role of Mark Penn. this union is shameless for its opportunism.
The at large sites are clearly set up to benenfit culianry union members against everybody else. there is clearly a merit for the teacher's union to sue. Timing wise, if the culinary union has stayed neutral, no such suit would have been necessary. If you have a brain, you should know that.
You understand how unfair it is. those people leave work to line up for the caucus. With union people around, how many of them dare to vote agaisnt the wish of union boss? How do you deal with voter intimadation in this case?
colonpowwow wrote on January 18, 2008 10:35 AM:As a Clinton supporter, I think this was a stupid move. Not "voter suppression" or on the par with how the race card has been played the last couple of weeks (BTW "congratulations" to Obama for significantly upping his black voter support per the last few polls - now, kumbaya - can't we all just get along?), but unnecessary for Clintons to get involved in any visible way with this, thus, stupid.
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 10:39 AM:colonpowwow wrote on January 18, 2008 10:35 AM:
--- the question is whether there is a merit in this lawsuit. So you are not concerned with voter intimidation. Can yo understand how difficult is it to stand against your co-workers in a situation like this?
Orin wrote on January 18, 2008 11:04 AM:I think "shameless" is exactly the English word to describe the Clintons, especially Bill. But it probably isn't really the worst trait to have in politics.
Think about it. You've got a guy who everyone in this country knows was foisting his "clenis" on all manner of people, shoving cigars into a teenage interns who-ha for the world to see, who then defended it by questioning what "is" really means. Not to mention substantive stuff pushing and signing uberconservative Glass-Stegal which cut the financial houses loose and is the heart of the housing mess now. And this guy's got the brass cojones to still run around in public and make combative arguments about liberal politics and voter supression on behalf of his enabling wife. The dude might have some sense of shame, but if he does, it simply doesn't affect him. The Clintons are simply different animals.
Every now and then it hits me just how amazing it is that the Clintons can still be running this show out there. I'm not going to vote for them unless I have to, but give them props...they are "shameless" in all the best and worst ways.
Bupalos wrote on January 18, 2008 11:14 AM:I think you can add "tireless" to "shameless." I do admit to being impressed with the way these Clintons just dig their hooks in and won't be shaken. Will they EVER go away? My jaw dropped with Bill making up the "these votes count 5x everyone else's, and no one could have known that..."
It's so bald faced, so naked, you almost admire it. This is what Bushco somehow managed. Lying as both art and science.
If you think about it, their family life and so forth, they really probably can't stop. We need to make an intervention here.
wglad wrote on January 18, 2008 11:54 AM:It's amazing to see a Progressive site steamed up about who is playing fair in a caucus. The caucus is the last remnant of the corrupt system the primaries were designed to eliminate. The real question here is why either Progressive candidate is campaigning in caucus states. Why not just get the party and union leaders together in a back room, make your pitch, and let them dole out the delegates? Mrs. Clinton will "win" in Nevada, if that means getting a couple of more delegates than Mr. Obama does, because she has the clout with the party. The price we pay is seeing Progressive candidates roughed up and discredited with important Democratic voters, very few of whom will attend the caucus.
wasab wrote on January 18, 2008 12:15 PM:I second what Chris Brown wrote above.
Look, all you rabid Obama and Clinton partisans need to remember that this is typical campaign stuff.
The important goal, for all of us who are totally disgusted with the state to which the Cheney administration has rendered the nation domestically and internationally, is to get rid of the neo-fascists.
We have a real chance to not only elect a democratic president but also veto proof majorities in the senate and house, so that perhaps habeas corpus may be restored, Gitmo will be closed, balance may be brought to the USA approach to the Middle East, and the other atrocities may be reversed.
Our country's survival is at stake here folks!!
Our nominee would have to be caught red-handed with a dead boy (or dead girl for Sen. Clinton) in their bedroom before I would vote for the other party. And I'd personally have to see it, not rely on what the media reports. Get a grip...
Paulie wrote on January 18, 2008 12:52 PM:"Yeah the election was rigged in New Hampshire for the Clintons. She's the one Repugs want."
Except the recount is going on now and so far nothing fishy with her vote count. In fact, she and some of other other candidates will be gaining a handful of votes that were miscounted.
Also, if you're going to label the Clinton camp as "shameless" you have to label the Obama camp shameless as well. After all, what is "Hillary Clinton does not respect our people?" if not race-baiting? Can you imagine the uproar over an ad that states "Obama does not respect our people?" So don't act like the Obama camp is innocent. Plus, there have been reports of alleged union intimidation against workers trying to get them to caucus for Obama.
huckspetsquirrel wrote on January 18, 2008 1:44 PM:As someone going back and forth between Obama and Clinton, I'm trying to gauge the signifance of that lawsuit. I have a gut reaction against caucusing in general. Additionally, I have a gut reaction against the timing of the lawsuit. But ultimately, even presuming the Clinton connection, I think any special site that gives a certain sect of people an advantage to voting deserves to be challenged. The flipside of disenfranchising the casino workers is disenfranchising other day workers who happen to not be in that business. Anyone care to explain why that is illogical? And also, after this is all over, what's the solution to at-large caucus events?
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 18, 2008 2:04 PM:The flipside of disenfranchising the casino workers is disenfranchising other day workers who happen to not be in that business. Anyone care to explain why that is illogical?
I should preface this response by saying that I think rather little of caucuses. When I lived in MI I found them a bothersome nuissance and was greatly relieved when I moved back to MO which has primaries instead. That said, the democrats of Nevada chose this format and it is their right to make such a determination. When the details of the caucus were being settled, the Culinary Workers' local in Las Vegas insisted that provision be made for their workers who work on Saturdays and could not make it to a Saturday morning caucus. Everyone else involved in the process agreed (and I mean everyone; the decision was unanimous). If other groups representing other populations (teachers, EMTs, casino workers in Reno, etc) had wanted such accomodations for their members, they were perfectly well able to ask for them at the same time that the Las Vegas Culinary Workers did. It seems a bit silly at this stage in the game to grouse that they had the opportunity and passed it up. No one else "disenfranchised" them; to the extent that they are disenfranchised, they did it to themselves by agreeing to the present arrangements back in March instead of asking for the same accomodations given to the Las Vegas Culinary Workers' local.
huckspetsquirrel wrote on January 18, 2008 2:24 PM:Greg,
Thank you for the explanation. Sometimes I wonder about the usefullness of these generally hate-spewing comment sections. But I guess like all things democratic they have their ups and downs.
docb wrote on January 18, 2008 6:14 PM:It would be a perfect world if we could judge our canidates on the character, good jugdement, integrity and what they might bring to the country but ALAS..it is not to be.A leopard does not change his spots and like wise Hill and Bill have been the candidates of 'personal destruction" for many years. Edwards and Obama have tried to stay above the fray. It becomes impossible when the liabil ous mailers and sly smears keep coming from the clintons.
But a little researched insight might serve to calm the nerves of those of us who are struggling to find a viable honest person to support.
See below:
January 18, 2008
Bill & Hillary: Union-Busters?
By Ronald A. Cass
Fresh from the Listening Tour, the Hillary I Know Tour, the Watch Me Cry Tour, and the Clintons for Change Tour (traveling the Back to the Future Express), the dynamic duo rolled into Nevada with a new message that should be music to conservative ears, but not an easy tune for them to carry: Let's Break the Unions!
The Clintons now tell Nevada caucus participants: don't follow the union bosses' directions. Think for yourselves. Act as individuals. Just because a union's governing body decides to support, say, Barack Obama is no reason to follow along blindly. After all, what right do union bosses have to tell the rank-and-file how to behave, to dictate your political choices? Not that there's anything wrong with that when it's the AFSCME union endorsing Hillary, but it's downright Orwellian mind-control when leaders of the local Culinary Workers Union pick the wrong gal (or guy). That's why Hillary shamelessly went door to door in Las Vegas imploring Culinary Workers to ignore union directions while Bill lectured workers on independent thinking.
After getting Hillary endorsements from the leaders of 13 unions representing 6 million members, thanks to relentless pursuit of every establishment credential they could find, the Clintons responded with outrage that a local union with 60,000 members could prefer her primary opponent. As Bill said, this shows the "establishment organization" is with Senator Obama, while the "insurgents" are with Hillary. (Somehow I missed Hillary's days as a grass-roots community organizer - which must have come somewhere between her stints as First Lady of Arkansas and First Lady of the U.S., great places to hone those bottom-up organizing skills!)
That endorsement sparked the recognition that union bosses are elitists whose power hurts workers. In his best, red-faced, finger-pointing, hoarse-shouting style (right on cue for the 10-year anniversary of Matt Drudge's exposure of the Monica story), Bill told listeners that union leaders "they think they're better than you are" and challenged workers to buck the unions.
Of course, Hillary and Bill aren't suggesting that the 6 million members of unions endorsing Hillary should be independent. Union members should still vote for Hillary when union leaders say they should, but they also should vote for Hillary when the union says they shouldn't. That's the kind of independent thinking the Clintons want.
**********
The new call for independence for union members runs smack into the ingrained view of Democratic union-backers that workers can't stand up for themselves as individuals. That's the idea all pro-union laws are built on - individual workers need unions to stand up for them. For 75 years, Democrats have insisted that workers can't decide whether to stay out of a union other workers have chosen, that workers can't negotiate for themselves on issues within the union leadership's portfolio, and even that workers can't decide whether they want to have their money go to a union, much less direct how it's spent.
Conservatives long have challenged the assertions that workers are better off having someone tell them what they should do, having unions speak for workers, take money from them, and spend money on political causes (and, implicitly, candidates) that the union leaders favor. But Democrats, backed by huge infusions of union money, keep a system in place predicated on just the opposite view.
The system works well for the union leaders and the candidates they support. Laws pushed by Democrats have allowed union taxation of worker wages to support leaders' spending priorities. Unions collect $8 billion or so annually through involuntary assessments. One court, looking at union spending, found that about 80 percent of union collections went not to worker representation and collective bargaining but to political activity. Something like 95 percent of this spending goes to help Democrats. In the 2000 elections, unions spent an estimated $800 million on attack ads and other political activities to promote Democrats, including Senate candidate Hillary Clinton (a special favorite of the United Auto Workers Union). The AFL-CIO alone will spend $200 million on the 2008 races.
That's not small change, even for a party now obsessed with change.
The Supreme Court's 1988 decision in Communications Workers v. Beck ruled that union members have the right not to support political spending they don't agree with. But one of President Bill Clinton's first acts was to repeal an executive order from President George H.W. Bush implementing the Beck decision (by requiring federal contractors post notices telling workers they aren't required to give money to unions for political spending). Bill and the union establishment saw no reason even to let workers know they have the right to think for themselves when that threatens the Democrats' prime engine of political sponsorship.
But that was then.
**********
The Clintons are nothing if not flexible. Bill can lie straight-faced about anything with enough charm to almost make you believe it, and Hillary will morph into any character - from tough cookie to cookie baker - to get votes. Yesterday, she was the candidate of experience. Today, she's the candidate of change, even if that just means she gets the Oval Office and Bill gets to have tea with the other spouses.
Few people bother to challenge Bill and Hillary's reversals and revisions - like backing a lawsuit challenging the location of caucus sites in Las Vegas that their team helped pick when they thought the Culinary Workers Union would endorse Hillary. Blatant self-interest and bold infidelity to facts are simply part of the package we've all come to know. But the former and would-be future First Couple continues to push the envelope.
In the last couple of weeks, comments by the Clintons and close supporters have shown astounding disregard for anyone and anything in their way. Andrew Cuomo (of the famously sensitive political family) said that Senator Obama can't "shuck and jive" his way to the White House. Charlie Rangel called Obama "absolutely stupid" - for something Obama never said. Bob Johnson elliptically reminded voters of Obama's youthful drug use (what he was doing in Chicago in the 1970s that we really can't say in public), then explained that referred to Obama's community organizing. Uh-huh. Hillary claimed she doesn't want race or gender to play a role in the campaign - so long as women understand she'd be the first woman to break the "hardest glass ceiling" and that sisterhood trumps brotherhood.
For liberals, the assault on union leadership has to be the cherry topping off this sundae of sloppy reasoning, shameless self-promotion, callous indifference to fact, and calculated insinuation.
For the rest of us, maybe this one time - just this once - we should take Bill and Hillary at their word. Let's show that new bipartisan spirit. Take up their cause. Roll back rules that support union politicking. Let workers spend their own money and pick their own candidates. And see how Democrats really like union members exercising their independence.
Ronald A. Cass is President of Cass & Associates, Dean Emeritus of Boston University School of Law, and author of "The Rule of Law in America" (Johns Hopkins University Press).
HA HA and you suckers voted for Obama in IOWA thinking he was Mr Ethics. Instead Obama is another bum liar.
