Judge Rules In Favor Of Vegas Strip Caucus Sites

Comments (113)

Angry Vet wrote on January 17, 2008 2:40 PM:

YAAAYYYY!

note: Obama "acolytes" everywhere are cheering!

pubasnacks wrote on January 17, 2008 2:44 PM:

NICE!!!!

sickofitall wrote on January 17, 2008 2:45 PM:

LOVE IT! score one for fair play. i expect a temper tantrum from bill and tears from hill any minute now!

ARR wrote on January 17, 2008 2:46 PM:

Justice has won. Vote suppression is a despicable, anti-demoractic practice and should never be countenanced, whether by Republicans or Democrats.

Josh wrote on January 17, 2008 2:47 PM:

Viva democracy!

Chad Okere wrote on January 17, 2008 2:47 PM:

Yeah... I can't understand what was going through their heads when they refused to bash that lawsuit. Playing games with disenfranchisement is an anathema to the democratic party.

Ron Jeremy wrote on January 17, 2008 2:48 PM:

Viva Obama! Soy voto por Obama. Obama por mas ilegal emigericon e driver's licons.

Angry Vet wrote on January 17, 2008 2:48 PM:

I love it when people don't read their dictionaries:

acolyte

Main Entry:
ac·o·lyte
Pronunciation:
\ˈa-kə-ˌlīt, -kō-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French & Medieval Latin; Anglo-French, acolit, from Medieval Latin acoluthus, from Middle Greek akolouthos, from Greek, adjective, following, from a-, ha- together (akin to Greek homos same) + keleuthos path
Date:
14th century
1 : one who assists a member of the clergy in a liturgical service by performing minor duties
2 : one who attends or assists : follower

I, of course, take the second definition offered.

Polly Briley wrote on January 17, 2008 2:48 PM:

Let the intimidation begin (or continue if you read the Las Vegas Sun).

Let the stewards stand at the door collecting the name of every union member and for whom they registered.

Let every union official refuse to offer time off unless you agree to caucus for Obama.

Let every store clerk, fireman, police officer, teacher, building and trade, etc. be left on the job with no time off to caucus.

Glad we got all that clear. Let Democracy Reign!

Ted wrote on January 17, 2008 2:52 PM:

Yes. Voter suppression has no place in the Democratic party.

And Bill Clinton not only refused to bash the lawsuit, but supported it (rather heatedly) to a local reporter. These are tactics we can do without.

Angry Vet wrote on January 17, 2008 2:53 PM:

PB-

Just read the article. LVS noted those claims of voter intimidation may have been "misrepresented."

Back your stuff up with articles.

storm wrote on January 17, 2008 2:53 PM:

slightly different subject.
I'd like to see voting change so that a voter ranks their preferences. instead of just marking their one favorite. i see it as a way to give fringe candidates and fringe parties a chance. as it is the two parties have too much power, and there are too many issues tied to each.

stemper wrote on January 17, 2008 2:53 PM:

Hopefully this will silence at least some of the "Obama is bush-lite/GOP talking points" rubbish from HRC advocates. There is nothing more republican than voter suppression.

Jorge wrote on January 17, 2008 2:54 PM:

Wow - dems bashing unions for foul play in elections and saying that a court ruling that allows people to participate in a caucus is anti-democratic.

Let's be honest folks, had Hillary gotten the endorsement this lawsuit would never, ever have happened. And by the way, the caucus is on Saturday. Teachers and non-emergency/first responder government workers will be able to caucus just fine.

DonnaG wrote on January 17, 2008 2:56 PM:

I was pretty concerned about this, but couldn't see how any judge would allow a voter suppression tactic to hold sway just two days before the caucus.

Now I wonder if the plaintiffs are filing a last minute appeal???

Angry Vet wrote on January 17, 2008 2:56 PM:

Prediction:

HRC wins Nevada ANYWAY, somewhere in the neighborhood of 34-32-25 (JRE in third).

ondioline wrote on January 17, 2008 2:56 PM:

Oh, Polly, Polly, Polly...

Your comment is dripping with sarcasm, but you seem to miss the central fact of this issue and the central fact of THE JUDGE'S DECISION:

The Nevada Democratic Party selected a Caucus system, as is their right. That decision was made long before the Culinary Union endorsed Obama. Hillary didn't have a problem with caucuses then. She didn't seem to have a problem with them at all before she lost Iowa. (If she thought it was so unfair, why did she legitimze the process by campaigning?) She didn't have a problem with the Culinary Union until after their endorsement. Are your grapes sour? Do you get all of your information from Taylor Marsh or just this particular strain of lies and innuendo?

john mccutchen wrote on January 17, 2008 2:56 PM:

This "awesome" Clinton campaign organization built up over 15 years with the sole aim of taking over the Democratic Party has pulled Karl Rove trick after Karl Rove trick - and screwed up every time

dstein wrote on January 17, 2008 2:58 PM:

I believe the voters win. The Democrats should be working to make voting easier for all those who wish to participate. It seemed to me that it was the Republicans who attempted to limit access to certain voting blocks in the past. I am glad that the DNC worked to open channels to these union workers.

Laertes wrote on January 17, 2008 2:58 PM:

What do you want to bet Mark "union-buster" Penn was ultimately behind this.

Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 2:59 PM:

Angry Vet ...

Did you get that prediction from a Magic 8 Ball, a Ouija board or where the sun don't shine?

wwjb wrote on January 17, 2008 3:01 PM:

Yeah, this isn't about Obama, at least not for Obama and his supporters, it is about democracy, voter suppression and the Clintons' "do anything say anything to win" strategy. Today Democracy and voters won, and voter suppression and the Clinton win-at-all-costs tactics have lost, at least for one day. I'm sure this won't stop them for a second though. There are plenty of other states and plenty of other ways to try to get in the way of people who are a little bit more likely to vote for Obama (or Edwards). They have kept rolling with their trademark 11th hour negative fallacious attack ads, so they aren't going down without a slimy, despicable, GOP-style fight.

Angry Vet wrote on January 17, 2008 3:01 PM:

Donna-

Don't worry. The District Judge decided against imposing an injunction. The Court of Appeals cannot place that injunction into effect without determining there was a "clear abuse of discretion" by the District Judge.

Since I have seen no good legal arguments in favor of this lawsuit (including the complaint documents themselves), it would be quite a stretch for the CoA to actually enforce an injunction at this point.

The word "extremely unlikely" does not give the impossibility of this occurring enough justice.

Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 3:01 PM:

Not everyone will be voting at the strip, only those pledged for Obama will be allowed off work.

Ron Jeremy wrote on January 17, 2008 3:02 PM:

They're not voters, they're caucus goers and they vote for Obama under the threat of deportation.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 17, 2008 3:02 PM:

I am still stunned that the Teachers and Culinary Unions are backing Corporate leaning candidates.

Angry Vet,

Acolyte in the first meaning . . . Religiously fervered toady . . . is more applicable to followers of the Rockstar and Oprah groupie than the second meaning.

Of course, the same can be said for the followers of the great and grand GOP godess and fear-mongering AuH2O gal . . .

Angry Vet wrote on January 17, 2008 3:02 PM:

Anonymous-

Straight outta my ass. I also believe HRC will win the nomination.

Not stopping me from being an Obama precinct capt. here in Minnesota, though.

jolt wrote on January 17, 2008 3:03 PM:

If the Clintons think the Vegas vote is worth 5x the rural vote, then, instead of wasting time and resources on a lawsuit, they should pool resources and try to figure out why rural people are unmotivated to vote. They should be working to encourage more people to vote in underserved areas instead of tamping down on a democracy at work.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 17, 2008 3:03 PM:

Glad to read this story. I am not the least wise surprised. It seemed unlikely to me that the suit would fly in the first place, but I am glad to see that it was settled expediently before it could really amount to any sort of difficulty.

Kevin wrote on January 17, 2008 3:04 PM:

This is definitely a win for Obama, and the whole suit came across as extremely unprincipled and desperate for the Clinton campaign.

Still, I have to agree with the poster above that this may not make a huge difference in the caucus results. Caucuses aren't primaries - you have to win everywhere. So, while the casino caucuses will obviously vote for Obama now, that's at most 6% of the total.

Still, Obama did great in the Iowa caucus. I trust he has a great organization on the ground here as well, all across the state.

Or, at least, I "hope." :)

john mccutchen wrote on January 17, 2008 3:05 PM:

Fcuk Anon AV...

I'm a Pct Capt here in SF...3523 ...we've got em all covered using the DNC VoteBuilder database for CA..

SLICK!

john mccutchen wrote on January 17, 2008 3:06 PM:

And KUDOS to Eric for an excellent analysis. May be his best yet!

Keep up the fine work

RPF wrote on January 17, 2008 3:07 PM:

Now the all-important issue is whether there will be an appeal. This was just the U. S. District Court. The article should have touched on this. I would think there is time for an appeal and I wouldn't be at all surprised.

Angry Vet wrote on January 17, 2008 3:08 PM:

JM-

Go get 'em! I like being the underdog. It fits my persona, and expecting things to turn out poorly is what has always driven me to success.

Personal foible, really.

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

this is so awesome! screw Bill Clinton. screw Hillary Clinton. insane, a sitting Senator and former President conspiring to suppress votes to get themselves elected back into the White House. they are shameless.

Paulie wrote on January 17, 2008 3:12 PM:

Nice cross-section of views here, I especially like the hillary supporters who use republican tactics of misinformation to make their arguments "stronger".
Of course, the campaign uses those tactics too and it was nice to see bill arguing about the lawsuit earlier.
What exactly was his point though?
He was arguing that the culinary workers votes would count 5-fold but also that he had nothing to do with the lawsuit. Take a stance man! Oops, I forgot, thats not how you roll. hillary is just the same.
Like most of us, I am sick and tired of bush, but a hillary presidency would be just more of the same. Oh dear.

Angry Vet wrote on January 17, 2008 3:13 PM:

RPF-

That is not how the system works. Injunctions are in the hands of the District judges. Courts of Appeals would require a whole new legal analysis and would have to clear the high hurdle of "clear abuse of discretion" on the part of the trial judge. They would need: 1. briefs 2. oral argument, and 3. written decisions.

That takes time, and alot of it.

Thus, completely separate legal issues involved. I don't know if TPM understood this, but their omission in noting possible appeals was perfectly justified.

Matthew wrote on January 17, 2008 3:14 PM:

You might rejoice at the lawsuit being rejected and see this as a win for Obama, or, more correctly for many writers, as a loss for Clinton, but what about the legitimacy of the vote? What about union intimidation of their members? What about unequal votes and representation? What about union-required pledges (for Obama) in order to participate? All of this, makes a mockery of the democratic process and of the caucus. Is your hatred of Clinton worth compromising the credibility of the election?

And BTW, it really won't matter if Clinton loses Nevada as the vote (1) won't be seen as legit and (2) she holds a good overall lead in the national race. But, if Obama goes on to lose Nevada after getting the union to stuff the caucus ballot box, what will this do for his campaign?

I think this is a loss for all concerned.

ogo wrote on January 17, 2008 3:14 PM:

How does one get to leave work mid shift to caucus for a few hours? It seems that caucus time covers the beginning of lunch and the time most hotel rooms are turning over - how can you go to caucus if you're changing sheets? I don't get how being closer to work makes it possible to be away from work not working. If employees are using some sort of leave time to caucus who is actually covering the shift - the republican resort workers?

kid oakland wrote on January 17, 2008 3:14 PM:

A victory for voters, indeed.

This story hurts the Clinton campaign.

It was also richly ironic to see bloggers misconstrue Barack Obama's reference to Reagan...on a day where Bill Clinton says mockingly..."Oh, they don't want us to vote."

That may well be the epitaph of Sen. Clinton's campaign here in NV / CA.

dnA wrote on January 17, 2008 3:15 PM:

Shorter Clinton Supporters:

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!

Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 3:18 PM:

Will slick Willie now claim that he was always against the lawsuit by the Teachers' Union, just like he claimed that he was always against the Iraq Invasion.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 17, 2008 3:20 PM:

Judge Rules In Favor Of Vegas Strip Caucus Sites

"Strip Caucus Sites"? In Vegas? Really, Mr Kleefeld, you had far too much fun with this headline. How many Las Vegas bachelor parties will begin this weekend with a strip caucus, I wonder?

;-p

john mccutchen wrote on January 17, 2008 3:22 PM:

I've been calling Democrats only here in SF Pct 3523 and we are kicking the $&@! out of Billary.

Independents are our voters and they're being covered by mass volunteer phone banks based on demographic sorts

Lookin forward to 2/5!

Jor wrote on January 17, 2008 3:22 PM:

Don't have such short memories!! This is Clinton's _SECOND_ time trying to suppress the vote this election cycle. She tried to stop college students from voting in Iowa. The Clintons will do anything to win. Bill's remarks made that perfectly clear.

No more Clinton! No more Bush! Change! wrote on January 17, 2008 3:23 PM:

One small victory for Obama...

One big victory for the anti-Clinton crowd.

Keep focused everyone.
The Clintons must be beat.
Perferably now.
But later in the General Election is okay too.

One way or another, American deserves something better than this Bush-Clinton junta.

DonnaG wrote on January 17, 2008 3:27 PM:

Angry Vet,
Thanks for the response about the appeal [non] possibility.

Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 3:30 PM:

Matthew.....YES A LOSS FOR ALL.

Polly Briley wrote on January 17, 2008 3:30 PM:

Actually, I have been opposed to caucuses since I testified against them in 1985 to DNC rules committee.

Caucuses are rife with intimidation and the set up for these is absolutely atrocious. The delegate divide means if you are a cop, teacher or a clerk in the 7/11 your vote counts significantly less.

How is that for democracy.

Sorry your way off assumption about Clinton support crashed and burned. Also the article does state that intimidation reports are continuing to come in. The local tv stations are covering this issue extensively and continuing to uncover cases.

Stay tuned.

Angry Vet wrote on January 17, 2008 3:30 PM:

JM-

My impression is the same here in my precinct, but i worry about the countryside in Minnesota. Thankfully, we have a strong organization in MN (Hillary just opened hers up a week ago, we've been here, organized, since early November).

Perhaps an NV and SC win would change my opinion on the dynamics of the race at large... I'm starting to feel very positive, though.

My hard work comes from the fact (at least in my mind) that Hillary will win. I am trying to stop that.

And if Edwards and his supporters are trying to stop that AS WELL, well, more power to him and them. We are fellow travelers.

My opinion has always been: "a vote for Edwards is a vote against Clinton." Call me an optimist.

I'm tending towards a brokered convention, a brokered nomination (JRE backs BHO, e.g.), or an HRC outright win...

What is interesting though, is the current dynamics, proven in two elections )1 caucus, 1 primary) suggest no one can get a majority of delegates. No candidate has scored above 40% at this point, which is what you need (plus all of the super delegates) in order to score the nomination.

Of course, at least we aren't very confused about who will support our nominee come GE time. Every single one of us will be behind him or her, no doubt. The Republicans, however, are a different story.

Angry Vet wrote on January 17, 2008 3:32 PM:

DG-

Your welcome. It beat the hell out of paying attention to International Business Transactions. Halfway done with law school and I am already sick of it.

Bupalos wrote on January 17, 2008 3:33 PM:

Duh. The lawsuit was a total loser, obviously motivated by who got the endorsement, and never had a prayer. I can't believe the Clintons tipped their hand with Bill's angry tirade about how "concerned" he was about the process. He is Fired Up and Ready to Shoot Himself in the Foot!!

What's hillarious is to see the concern trolls trying to argue that you have to pledge to vote Obama in order to be allowed to caucus. Are you people for real? Do you think ANYONE buys this garbage?

Clinton probably still takes NV as designed from the start, but she sure did slip as the campaign went along. It's another state where the longer she campaigned, the worse her numbers looked. There is a pattern here folks.

Angry Vet wrote on January 17, 2008 3:36 PM:

One more note about caucuses:

PB is absolutely right. Caucuses are a terrible and horribly obsolete method of selecting candidates that dates back to the machine politics era of our country.

Unfortunately, as the current Administration reminded my comrades and I while in Kuwait, "You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want."

This idea of the elimination of the caucus system should be remembered and eliminated through the DNC.

But now is not the time to challenge the validity of the process. I'm a lawyer. Let's see some facts and some lawsuits.

Bill R. wrote on January 17, 2008 3:46 PM:

This is a victory for the people of Nevada, regardless of what camp you are in. It's truly sad that the Clintons were behind something like this. Bill Clinton went ballistic today defending this travesty of voter suppression. They are destroying the legacy and whatever good will there may be out there.

Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 3:46 PM:

Ron Jeremy wrote: "They're not voters, they're caucus goers and they vote for Obama under the threat of deportation."

Really? Illegal aliens can register to vote in Nevada?

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 17, 2008 3:49 PM:

PB is absolutely right. Caucuses are a terrible and horribly obsolete method of selecting candidates... but now is not the time to challenge the validity of the process.

Indeed. Precisely right. I wish there were no caucuses in place in any state, but the democrats of NV get to make this choice for themselves, and for whatever reason they chose to caucus instead of voting. That must be respected at present. I hope that next go around the Nevada teachers' union & al insist on a good, old-fashioned secret ballot election.

DancingBear wrote on January 17, 2008 3:52 PM:

I don't want to go too far out on the conspiracy limb, but I thought Bill Clinton's tirade about the lawsuit was interesting. He kept talking about how when the teacher's union agreed to the new rules they didn't know that the votes on the strip could be more heavily weighted than elsewhere, but that "then they found that out."

Leaving aside the whole mathematical calculation thing, just how did the teacher's union "find that out"? Any chance that the Clinton campaign figured this out a long time ago and then provided that information to the teachers union after the Culinary Union's endorsement of Obama? So then the Clintons have plausible deniability (they didn't push for any lawsuit, they just passed along information)?

DBH wrote on January 17, 2008 3:52 PM:

I thought this video on the topic was fantastic: it captures the sense of outrage from Bill, it goes two and three levels deep on fact checking, and it ultimately exposes the BS. Outstanding reporting, which is rare in this he said/she said journalistic environment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uthdea6X2PE

improper wrote on January 17, 2008 3:52 PM:

Judicial bitch slap.

DancingBear wrote on January 17, 2008 3:57 PM:

It is possible that the Court of Appeals could hear this on an expedited basis; however, although I haven't been able to find the decision yet, from the quoted parts in the news stories the Judge makes a sound point. The Democrats set the rules for how they select their nominee. Remember, the machine used to do it all in private smoke-filled rooms. In that context, arguments of the one man/one vote principal seem out of place.

Illegal Alien wrote on January 17, 2008 3:57 PM:

"Illegal aliens can register to vote in Nevada?"

The Culinary Union is pressuring illegal kitchen workers to caucus for Obama.

DonnaG wrote on January 17, 2008 4:00 PM:

Angry Vet,
Good luck with law school.......about a century ago[ha] I was a law school student's wife, and sometimes briefed cases for fun, believe it or not.

I just watched the ABC7 news clip of Bill Clinton getting in that reporter's face about the lawsuit. Bill Clinton not only lost it and bullied the reporter, his pallor really looks bad and his eyes are sort of glassy, especially at the beginning in those moments before he was questioned by the reporter.

zonk wrote on January 17, 2008 4:03 PM:

Hey...

Obama backer here absolutely agreeing that it's high time we got rid of the "caucus" as entity for selecting our nominee.

Give me a movement, a form, a petition, a place to register my support for their elimination -- and I will absolutely, loudly, and unequivocally do so....

But only between cycles.

DancingBear wrote on January 17, 2008 4:04 PM:

I haven't seen this talked about much, but toward the end of the Meet the Press appearance, Hillary said the following, which really mischaracterizes the nature of the lawsuit (emphasis added):

SEN. CLINTON: Well, first of all, I don't think it's supporters of mine. There seems to be some misunderstanding about that. I was asked yesterday in Reno. The teachers union who brought the suit has not endorsed me, and so [b]I THINK THEIR CONCERN IS TO HAVE AS MANY PEOPLE PARTICIPATE AS POSSIBLE, WHICH IS CERTAINLY WHAT IT SHOULD BE. This is now in the courts. The courts and the state party will have to work it out. BUT I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO DISENFRANCHISE ANYBODY.

zonk wrote on January 17, 2008 4:06 PM:

The Culinary Union is pressuring illegal kitchen workers to caucus for Obama

I read it on hillaryis44.org -- so you just KNOW it's true!

felix wrote on January 17, 2008 4:10 PM:

Obama's goignt o need allthe help he can get.

A new poll has him down by nine to HRC

http://www.lvrj.com/breaking_news/13871382.html

felix wrote on January 17, 2008 4:11 PM:

HRC up by nine in Nevada

http://www.lvrj.com/breaking_news/13871382.html

john mccutchen wrote on January 17, 2008 4:12 PM:

Mr. Hillary's tantrum today - reporter called him out on the Federal Court decision throwing out the Clinton Suppress the Vote Suit in Vegas!

Good god, after 15 years of machine building, 8 years of BushCheneyRove, you'd think the Invincible Clinton Machine would do better than let Bill out of the basement.

Undecided wrote on January 17, 2008 4:21 PM:

Wow - these comments are, um, interesting. I sincerely hope that after this pack of rabid Obama-weilers gets through feasting on the bones of those evil Clintons that they're ready and able to do the same in the general election against the Republican candidate. You remember them, right, the Republicans?

Illegal Alien wrote on January 17, 2008 4:27 PM:

UNITE HERE is running a radio ad in Spanish asking people to vote for Obama because he opposed the lawsuit. The ad contends that Clinton has been trying to suppress the vote.

john mccutchen wrote on January 17, 2008 4:28 PM:

Angry Vet...

I practiced law for 20 years. JUST DON'T DO IT

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 17, 2008 4:28 PM:

I am not really sure what any poll in NV is worth (even the ones which show Obama ahead). How do you screen for "likely voters" in a state where turnout is historically so low?

swarty wrote on January 17, 2008 4:34 PM:

Shorter Hillary Clinton (wagging finger):

"I did not have culinary relations with that lawsuit, Nevada."

She had her chance to denounce the lawsuit when it was filed. She did not.
Unlike some others, I am not surprised her surrogates filed the suit and she said nothing. That is politics and doing what you think you need to do to win.

But I think the fairer question is now whether by giving tacit approval to the suit does she now stand to lose more than she would if she had denounced the suit? The answer is a resounding YES. All of the bad publicity can only serve to show the culinary workers that she's not on their side. If she had sided with the workers, she easily could have peeled some of them away from Obama on Saturday.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

Audacious_One wrote on January 17, 2008 4:36 PM:

The Culinary Union is pressuring illegal kitchen workers to caucus for Obama

Lets just put this to rest before it goes any further shall we?

http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/early-line/2008/jan/16/incident-paris-las-vegas/

xargaw wrote on January 17, 2008 4:37 PM:

This is an excellent argument for making election days holidays where everyone is off work for some portion of the day so they can vote or caucus. Any attempt to suppress the vote should be blocked. This is a just decision.

Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 4:38 PM:

Matthew wrote: "What about union intimidation of their members? What about unequal votes and representation? What about union-required pledges (for Obama) in order to participate?"

Hey, Matthew, it was Hillary Clinton's pals in the Nevada Democratic Party who set up this caucus and its rules. Were you objecting when Hillary Clinton was expecting to get the CWU endorsement, or did you just grow a conscience after the union endorsed Obama?

Speaking of union endorsements, is it any surprise the CWU chose Obama over Hillary? Mark Penn, the union-buster who is running Clinton's campaign (and a good friend of both Clintons), had run a nasty union-bashing activity against United HERE, the CWU's parent organization. They wrote to Clinton asking her to remove Penn from her campaign, and she ignored them completely.

Yet Hillary expected them to endorse her? Who's really living in a fairy tale?

RPF wrote on January 17, 2008 4:38 PM:

Angry Vet -- thanks for the correction as to the standard on appeal...one less thing to worry about.

swarty wrote on January 17, 2008 4:43 PM:

My understanding is that the Teachhers Union was instrumental in getting the caucus scheduled on a Saturday, a day where teachers would presumably be more able to caucus. I can't speak to the teachers who would have to work at the schools on caucus day, but to be sure, that number pales in comparison to the number who would be able to caucus.

Just a little food for thought.

Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 4:44 PM:

>>>>... gets through feasting on the bones of those evil Clintons that they're ready and able to do the same in the general election against the Republican candidate. You remember them, right, the Republicans?
>>>>

Yeah, with lawsuits to close down polling places and mailers about how $200,000 incomes are the heart of the working middle class, how can we forget?

DancingBear wrote on January 17, 2008 5:29 PM:

xargaw wrote: "This is an excellent argument for making election days holidays where everyone is off work for some portion of the day so they can vote or caucus."

I agree that's a good idea but the issue here arose precisely because the caucus is on a Saturday when the Strip is at full capacity (but teachers are off). There really aren't any days when "everyone" is off work.

Anybody see a fuller explanation of how many teachers were required to work at school caucus sites? That whole line didn't make sense to me. I vote at a school (which is closed on election day), and if there are any school workers there that day, it can't be more than a few.

TexModDem wrote on January 17, 2008 5:52 PM:

Obama wins; democracy loses.

It is legal now to give special access to voting to a particular group and deny that same access to others.

Congratulations.

Wonder what Obama and his supporters would have said if Nevada had provided state-paid buses for whites only and not blacks or state-paid daycare for teachers only but not culinary workers.

Joe Buck wrote on January 17, 2008 5:54 PM:

If you want maximum participation, you need to have an election, not a caucus, and make it easy to get absentee ballots for those who can't make it to a polling place at a designated time. Given that you are going to have a caucus, having it on a Saturday as well as putting extra locations near where a lot of people work on Saturday seems about the best you can do. I suppose you could start it at sundown Saturday if there's a significant population of Orthodox Jews.

blue wrote on January 17, 2008 5:54 PM:

Another attempt to win an election through a court of law; instead of the people, by the people, for the people. The Clintons are the dirties and most lowdown people in politics. Billy is trying to bypass the two terms limit by running for prsident via Hilly. You have to ask Just who is REALLY running?? He is a washed up has been that pushes his female so he can be out in the political arena, again. Even, the first Bush didn't act as Billy is doing when W was running. Billy is just tooo involved! Billy should let Hill fight her own fight by staying in the background. Enough of the Clintons. They had eight years. It is truly time for a change. The lawsuit was a pathetic show of fear by the Clintons and their camp. There will come a time that a better woman will run. Hill represents the same old same old. He lied to and embarassed the country with Whitewatergate, Monica, Little Elio, Jenny Flowers... the country needs a FRESH new start! Obama is an EVERYMAN. At least, he has admitted his casualties of being a human being... we fall, we get back up and start again. Hilly, can't identify with the everyday people.

red wrote on January 17, 2008 6:07 PM:

Another attempt to win an election through extending voting benefits to the few rather than the many in a way that promotes the fortunes of only one candidate.

Obama and his supporters are the dirtiest, most low-down people in politics, as well as being the world's biggest hypocrites and liars.

Opposition to the lawsuit was a pathetic show of fear by the Obama campaign and their supporters who feared giving all Nevada voters an equally favorable opportunity to fully participate.

He lied to and embarassed the country with his support of Kerry/Edwards by stating he didn't know how he would have voted on Iraq then sought to take back his comment as being just politics as usual even while proclaiming himself to be not politics as usual.

Desider wrote on January 17, 2008 6:11 PM:

Hate to break all your l'il hearts, but this ruling is very similar to that disenfranchising voters in Florida and Michigan - it basically says the Democratic Party can do what it wants in its caucuses and primaries - it's an internal matter. Call us when it reaches the general election and then we'll consider.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 17, 2008 6:11 PM:

Wonder what Obama and his supporters would have said if Nevada had provided state-paid buses for whites only and not blacks or state-paid daycare for teachers only but not culinary workers.

I imagine that the Obama campaign would do the same thing that the Edwards and Clinton campaigns would do. Just like the Obama campaign did nothing different than the Clinton and Edwards campaigns in this instance. No campaign had a hand in crafting this arrangement or a hand in opposing it. I can easily see why folks might find it objectionable, but they should take it up with the Nevada Democratic party, not the various campaigns, as the campaigns had nothing to do with it.

kozmik wrote on January 17, 2008 6:27 PM:

Way to go Bill & Hillary Clinton! As offensively charming as ever. And you're such clear winners too.

Taters wrote on January 17, 2008 6:44 PM:

What's up with Obama sucking up to the Reagan myth???

Franklin wrote on January 17, 2008 6:50 PM:

Greg, nice spin. No dice.

The existence of the suit, the timing of the suit, and the parties involved with the suit tell us exactly what was going on here.

Especially in light of the suit in Iowa over student voting, and the harassment of poll monitors in New Hampshire -- we have a clearly established pattern of behavior that goes beyond one state political party (the Nevada Democratic party, btw, opposed the suit. This particular suit was brought by some players in the Clark County Demcratic party with close ties to the Clinton campaign).

The Clintons are in a category themselves this election. They're a couple of sleazy politicians who have run a dirty campaign. We should call it exactly what it is.

taters wrote on January 17, 2008 7:02 PM:

Man, I can't believe that video to the right of Obama praising Reagan. Wow.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 17, 2008 7:05 PM:

Dear Franklin,

I concede that your cui bono argument makes a certain amount of sense prima facie. I will insist, however, on regarding Sen Clinton as innoncent until proven (not merely suspected) guilty.

All this rather misses my point, however. If you re-read my post, you will see that it was a response to TexModDem's insistance that Obama and his supporters (like myself) are somehow party to a disenfranchisement of Nevadans. My only point was that Obama did not craft the caucus site distribution and neither did his supporters. For better or worse, that was the work of the Nevada Democratic party, so it is pointless for TexModDem to gripe about Obama on this thread.

I think that the whole caucus idea is a crummy system. I, however, do not live in Nevada, so my opinion on this point really does not matter. The democrats of Nevada created this, not Sen Obama, so why all the finger-pointing at Obama supporters like myself?

amber wrote on January 17, 2008 7:17 PM:

Thanks goodness. This really made me sick and shows that Dems have the same tendencies as the Republicans to try to keep voters from actually voting. The Clinton campaign probably planned this from the moment Obama got momentum in Iowa, but I wonder if camp Obama had the same plan if Hillary won-I doubt it, but you never know.

However, it was an ugly, embarrassing scene and I wish Bill Clinton would shut up all ready. It makes Hillary's lie about how she or her campaign had no involvement in the suit on Meet the Press so glaring-she actually seemed sincere there-but hence, she learned something from that marriage.

fillphil wrote on January 17, 2008 8:40 PM:

Your headline says a lot. My question is: Today Bill Clinton dressed down a reporter about the case suggesting that it was unfair because the votes at the casino caucus will be "worth 5x as much as votes at other sites" and this was misunderstood when it was originally adopted. Is that true? I don't profess to know much about the issue and the point he was trying to make to the reporter sounded reasonable to me. Anybody really know?

CalD wrote on January 17, 2008 8:59 PM:

fillphil,

That's potentially true as I understand it. Depends on attendance though, and that may be a bit of a worst case example.

CalD wrote on January 17, 2008 9:16 PM:

I kind of think this was a win-win for Clinton. The NSEA hasn’t even endorsed her as far as I know, so even given that the timing of the suit is questionable despite its apparent merits, accusations that it was done at her behest are dubious at best.

Win or lose, this suit was also successful in drawing attention to the irregularities of the casino caucuses such as lopsided representation for the culinary workers and the fact that no similar arrangements were made for shift workers in Reno hotels who are represented by a rival union, or for anyone else who works nights. It also served to make the culinary workers endorsement sound like a bigger deal than it may actually be, given that many of its members are ineligible to vote and only about at third are working at any given time.

But if Clinton should happen to win Nevada now it can now be plausibly positioned as a moral victory of sorts, in addition to being a much bigger deal than it would have otherwise in terms of the expectations game. Conversely, if Obama wins, a plausible case can be made that it's a tainted victory, in light of the culinary union’s sweetheart deal and with the smart money all on him, he'd have to win by a lot to get more than nominal buzz out of it.

Clayton wrote on January 17, 2008 9:46 PM:

>LOVE IT! score one for fair play.

Yeah! Woo I love the fair play where people who vote on the strip (and only those who work there are even ALLOWED to vote there) get to have their votes count 5x more than anyone else!

Yay fairness!

Daniel wrote on January 17, 2008 10:10 PM:

I've always generally liked bill clinton - disagreed with him on many points from FDA policy to Bosnia but, still generally liked him - but his exchange with that reporter changed that quickly - to argue against making it easier for people to vote is appalling

Gregor wrote on January 17, 2008 10:17 PM:

Cognitive dissonance is now alighting on the minds of HRC supporters, in the wake of this shameful lawsuit and it's outcome. Oh Boy. And Bill continues his role as a major liability, for HRC. Of course, she's not doing so hot either.

Clinton Camp: you are in real trouble now, my friends.

ARR wrote on January 17, 2008 11:19 PM:

I was surprised and disappointed that the Clinton campaign could assume that the intelligence of average citizens is so low. Clearly, they had no leg to stand on, politically or legally. Their opposition to the caucus sites on the Strip came only AFTER the Culinary Union decided to support Obama. Provision for the caucus sites on the Strip had been agreed to in March, so the teachers' union and Clinton campaign had had ample time to dispute it, making the lawsuit at this hour seem like Rovian politics.

Obviously changing this provision six days before the election would disenfranchise cooks, hotel workers, and casino workers who have assumed they could caucus near their workplaces. Unlike teachers and those in many other professions, they do not have Saturdays off. If the lawsuit had been successful, these workers would have had no time on such short notice to arrange their work schedules to be able to participate if they so desired.

Ironically, the Clinton campaign complained after losing Iowa that caucuses are not fair because they disenfranchise those who have to work during caucus meetings. What the Clinton's are doing is truly out of the book of Bush and Rove: "The rules only apply when they help me (and when I get to make them), especially in elections."

ARR wrote on January 17, 2008 11:22 PM:

Clayton,
By the way, Bill pulled the "votes count 5x as much" argument out of where the sun don't shine. It's totally bogus. Check out this news report:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uthdea6X2PE

Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 12:07 AM:

If anything results from all this, let's hope that Bill and Hillary's support for stripping minorities of their votes will be remembered during the next few primaries. Latino voters in Southern California will hopefully defect from the Clintons, en masse. (Black voters, of course, already have.)

Bill Clinton's argument that the votes of these Vegas strip employees will somehow be worth more than others was simply a massive distortion, intended to disenfranchize fellow Democrats.

What a sleazeball, no-class act. Ex-presidents traditionally have *some* degree of dignity and gravitas, so it's really painful to see him throw what's left of his away to help lie, cheat, and steal elections for his wife.

I used to respect the man, but that was a long, long time ago, before he looked me straight in the face and lied to me.

Now, he's simply incredible... as in lacking any credibility whatsoever... and rather sad. And while I kind of pity him, I still wouldn't shake his hand.

Mark Kraft wrote on January 18, 2008 12:16 AM:

If there is any justice, Telemundo and other Spanish-speaking media will start drumming home the Clinton attempt to disenfranchise Latino voters, who will turn against the Clintons en masse. (Black voters, of course, already have.)

Bill Clinton massively distorted the facts in order to help disenfranchise minority voters in Nevada. It's absolutely disgraceful, and a sad thing to see.

Ex-presidents traditionally have some degree of dignity and gravitas, but Bill has destroyed what is left of his by showing he's willing to lie, cheat, and steal in order to get his wife back in the White House.

He's simply incredible... as in lacking any credibility whatsoever... and it's sad to see his reputation come crashing down, but hey... he brought it on himself.

I had respect for him once, but he looked me straight in the eye and then lied to me, along with everyone else in America. What a dog. What a disappointment.

Mark Kraft wrote on January 18, 2008 12:19 AM:

Hey Latinos.... Bill Clinton didn't want you to vote, because he thought it would hurt his wife's chances to get elected. But can you vote?!

"Si! Se puede!"

thepeoplechoose wrote on January 18, 2008 5:12 AM:

Bill and Hill need to clean up their act or get outa Dodge. This is about establishment politics and they still haven't gotten the message that voters have had it up to their eyeballs with the status quo. Bush has walked all over some fundamental freedoms in the last seven years and this isn't really any different. Just as the court soundly rejected the premise of the suit, voters should reject Hill and Bill because it was to their personal advantage to support the lawsuit in spite of the obvious ethical and legal transgression.

Hillary is a lawyer and a U.S. Senator. What doesn't she understand about freedom of assembly? She knows, but didn't care, because all she wants is to win. She wins, and the country loses.

Gee, doesn't that have a familiar feel to it? Oh Yeah! That's what Bush does all the time. Hillary = Bush Lite. And I'm not talking about the beer.

TexModDem wrote on January 18, 2008 8:49 AM:

No more Clinton! No more Bush! Change!

I remember some idiot supporting Obama just the other day said that no Obama supporters were saying they wouldn't vote for Clinton.

LOL.

TexModDem wrote on January 18, 2008 8:51 AM:

Greg DeLassus: "I can easily see why folks might find it objectionable, but they should take it up with the Nevada Democratic party . . ."

They did, through the only means left to them and Obama supporters criticized them for it.

LOL with that argument.

TexModDem wrote on January 18, 2008 8:56 AM:

amber: "Thanks goodness. This really made me sick and shows that Dems have the same tendencies as the Republicans to try to keep voters from actually voting."

It's nice to see amber feeding the lie that this suit would have kept people from voting, which is totally false.

The casino workers were being given easier access to voting than any other group in the state - taking that away would not in any way, shape, or form have prevented them from attending the caucuses or denied them their right to vote and to say otherwise is an outrageous falsehood.

No one was turning these workers away from the polls, denying them a registration to vote, or in any other way impeding their ability to vote.

If you want to focus your wrath on voter suppression, focus it on the casino owners who refused to make accomodation for their workers to attend, but then Obama as a big corporate shill and bribee wouldn't want to p*ss those folks off now would he.

TexModDem wrote on January 18, 2008 9:03 AM:

Gregor: "Cognitive dissonance is now alighting on the minds of HRC supporters . . ."

This from someone who shamelessly lies about how a successful lawsuit would have disenfranchised the casino workers and prevented them from voting instead of simply making it a little more difficult.

This isn't simply cognitive dissonance on the part of Gregor, but outright mendacity.

"Of course, she's not doing so hot either."

Except that she's moved to 37% - 30% over Obama nationally in the last week from tied at 33%.

Nice try though.

"Clinton Camp: you are in real trouble now, my friends."

Exactly what they said about Bill when he was trailing both Perot and Bush.

How did that turn out for you lying Clinton haters?

One thing this will do, however, is push many Clinton supporters to vote for McCain or Romney in the general, thus undermining this alleged broad appeal that Obama is supposed to have.

If Obama wins the nomination, it will be so ironic to see the neo-progressives who supported Nader watch their chosen god go down in flames due to moderate and conservative Democrats abandoning Obama in the same fashion Nader supporters abandoned another so-called "GOP-lite" candidate, Al Gore, out of spite.

TexModDem wrote on January 18, 2008 9:09 AM:

Anonymous: "Bill Clinton's argument that the votes of these Vegas strip employees will somehow be worth more than others was simply a massive distortion, intended to disenfranchize fellow Democrats."

The only one blowing smoke out of their ass is you, Anonymous, since you've utterly failed to show how the casino workers would have been disenfranchised or why the state could not have used other means fair to everyone such as extend the hours for the caucus and allow voting to occur in shifts or pressuring the casino owners to make accomodations for workers or any of several other means.

But you would rather lie about casino workers possibly being "disenfranchised" because that's who you are, just like Bush supporters in the administration, even when it wasn't required, lied, lied, and lied in order to spin the administration's story and this is also why having Obama as president will be just like having Bush as president: an administration filled with the religiously politically orthodox who paint anyone outside their elitist circle as evil and a danger to the country - you can just see Obama supporters calling the Clintons part of some axis-of-evil . . . oh, wait, they already have.

Obama and his supporters are far more like Bush and his supporters than the Clintons are - by leaps and bounds, and we don't need 8 more years of the same politics as religion koolaid-drinking crap.

TexModDem wrote on January 18, 2008 9:12 AM:

ARR: "If the lawsuit had been successful, these workers would have had no time on such short notice to arrange their work schedules to be able to participate if they so desired."

This is utter bullsh*t.

All kinds of arrangements could have been made, not to mention that extended voting sites could have been created for other groups, leaving those for the casino workers in place.

More lies by Obama supporters about disenfranchisement.

You clealy don't know the meaning of the word.

TexModDem wrote on January 18, 2008 9:16 AM:

thepeoplechoose: "Just as the court soundly rejected the premise of the suit, voters should reject Hill and Bill because it was to their personal advantage to support the lawsuit in spite of the obvious ethical and legal transgression."

More lies.

Neither the filers of the suit nor the Clintons did anything unethical or illegal.

If so, please quote the ethical code or criminal code provisions they violated.

BTW, it was to Obama's personal advantage to oppose the lawsuit and he did without hesitation even though it gave more favorable treatment to casino workers than any other group.

I repeat: what would Obama have done if the state of Nevada had given preferential treatment to whites or teachers and provided state-paid bussing to caucus sites for whites and not blacks or state-paid daycare for teachers and not casino workers?

TexModDem wrote on January 18, 2008 9:18 AM:

Mark Kraft: "Bill Clinton massively distorted the facts in order to help disenfranchise minority voters in Nevada."

So "casino worker" is a minority in Nevada?

LOL with that.

Is there no end to the lies Clinton haters will tell?

Apparently not.

TexModDem wrote on January 18, 2008 9:40 AM:

BTW, for all you race-baiting Obama supporters, unless you are claiming that Nevada teachers are predominately white, then your claims that the lawsuit was racist and that Clinton's support of the lawsuit should make them persona non grata with minorities in Nevada are the worst kind of bilious mendacity and if you are claiming that Nevada teachers are predominately white, you are effectively admitting that it is okay to give preferential treatment to minorities in the voting process, every bit as odious as suppressing minority votes.

One person, one vote clearly has no meaning for Obama supporters.

Moreover, the fact that his supporters continue to race-bait the Clintons and make specious and scurrilous charges of racism against them after he's asked them not to pretty much shows how little consensus building and mobilizing ability Obama really has: none.

But we pretty much knew that already after viewing his record of utter non-performance in those areas in the Senate.

Post a comment

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