It seems that for a long time, the Nevada teachers union didn't have a problem with a plan to set up caucus sites on the Las Vegas Strip. But then the union that represents casino workers endorsed Barack Obama. The teachers are for Hillary Clinton. So now the teachers are suing to make it harder for casino workers to vote.
« Centrist on a White Horse | Main | Durbin Versus Clinton »
No Votes for You
13 Jan 2008 11:03 am
Comments (37)
I'm not sure HRC could shut this maneuver down with a mere phone call. A LOT of teachers really despise the idea of merit pay: they see it as a wedge that could divided and weaken unions that already lack strength. This maneuver really is a power move of one special interest group against another one. Not a big surprise and not pretty but totally legal.
Major correction needed Matthew:
Some teacher's union leaders are Clinton supporters. But it's hardly accurate to claim that "the teachers are for Hillary Clinton" Some certainly are. But a majority? I have my doubts.
I did not know that Russert made errors. He did not use the full quote with HRC on his MTP.
That full quote is at:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2008/01/new_york_times_11.php
Why is the Press giving HRC a free hand?
I know she will be the nominee. But, a newspaper (NYT) and a TV show (MTP), both giving a break. Then you have to wonder how Obama can win.
On Meet the Press, Hillary just tried to distance herself from this teacher's union maneuver by pointing out that they haven't endorsed her yet, therefore you can't say that this is coming from her campaign and you can't ask her to shut down the lawsuit.
Riiiight.
She also said that people shouldn't pay any attention to polls, that she never does.
Uh-huh. That's why your fucking campaign is run by a pollster.
This just shows how, for the Clintons, it is more important for them to win then the party. It will certainly be very useful in the general election to have casino workers, who you would think would break Democratic, have easy access to voting.
Seeing how the lawyer who filed this suit and the people listed are Clinton backers, I think they are doing this with HRC's knowledge and blessing.
I do not care for the Clintons much as they both have always had this tawdriness about them but, I did vote for Bill because he was a democrat.
But, now, I cannot stand to see either Clinton and they make me feel almost the same as Bush does. The behavior by both these past several weeks leaves a bad taste in my mouth and if she becomes our nominee I will go independent and not vote for her.
Seeing how I am hardly alone in this feeling, I wonder how the democratic party would feel to know she not only cannot bring in independents or disillusioned moderate republicans but, also drives democrats away from the party.
Funny thing is, if HRC gets the nomination, MY will be clicking his heels together just like the rest of them.
Funny thing is, if HRC gets the nomination, MY will be clicking his heels together just like the rest of them.
Maybe not. Right now there are a lot of reliable Dem voters swearing that they will vote independent or even for McCain if HRC is the nominee. (I'm one of them.) You'd think that at least some of us actually mean it.
And of course, the more we hear snide predictions such as yours, kafka, the less likely we are to click our heels together.
Tin:
I think (maybe) I understand how a Democrat might have voted for McCain in 2001 or 2002. But how could you do it now? How is he more progressive (if that is a proper criterion) than any of the leading Democrats?
It was pretty telling, too, that when Hillary was asked about the suit on MTP, she said she didn't really know much about it.
Then she stated a paraphrase of the plaintiff's argument in the lawsuit.
Funny she didn't ask for "more context" in that instance as she did in so many others, and just pushed the side of the lawsuit that will disenfranchise members of a union that doesn't support her.
I might plug my nose and vote for McCain if Clinton is the nominee--I doubt it though, I would certainly be looking for someone else. There is still lots of time to think this through, but I am fairly sure that a Clinton nomination will drive me away from the party. That sounds rash and hateful--I don't hate her though. I just don't see much clean air between her and McCain and if her experience argument is germane then I must vote McCain. And if you throw in the behavior of Congress lately, I feel like voting Dem is like base jumping. I just don't think I will be able to make the leap without the right parachute.
Seriously though, neither candidate offers me a thing when it comes to the issues of the day and I don't expect any likely third party candidate will be effective at what Edwards offers.
Shameful politicking without a legal leg to stand on. I'm yet another a straight-ticket democratic voter who will no longer vote for Clinton. I've never been a Clinton fan, but watching the distortions, racial attacks, and dirty campaign tactics pile up over the last two weeks has been too much. McCain is a good person and on the right side of torture, climate change, clean government, and fiscal responsibility. I'd vote for either him or Bloomberg (who I know little about) in the general ahead of Clinton.
Helter,
It's disenfranchising elderly white women that Clinton objects to. Blacks and Latinos are part of the patriarchy, or something, even the female 50%. Cause they like Obama.
Electing McCain virtually ensures the appointment of judges who will be decidedly unprogressive in their interpretation of the constitution regarding choice, privacy, and affirmative action. Making that kind of choice seems suicidal to me if you care about the fate of liberalism at all. The tenor of this thread evokes the "lefter than thou" sensibility that consumed the Democratic Party in 1968. Isn't this how we got Nixon? Do we want to do that again?
The media is filled with stories about how Democrats are fundamentally happier with their choices than Republicans, but you'd never know it from reading this thread.
You're trying to pull a Tweedy Matthews. The casinos can be taken as a home field advantage for Obama. Also, the union has endorsed Obama, but most of union members are Hispanics and they tend to be Hillary supporters. Women members are Hillary fanatics.
Mute your ridicule Mr.
No analysis of this at all, Matthew? Just a short graf?
I mean, give it some attention. This is an attempt at voter disenfranchisement of the worst sort, and Clinton effectively said she has no reason to stop it. That alone is breathtaking.
The teachers are already favored in this caucus scenario: the caucuses are being held on Saturday, when teachers are off. Meanwhile, Saturday is a workday for the culinary workers, and the organization of the alternative caucus locations (back in summer, mind you) was only meant to encourage what will continue to be a difficult sell...getting three hours off of work to vote their consciences.
"We have taken unprecedented steps to include as many Nevadans as possible in this historic caucus day," Democratic party deputy executive director Kirsten Searer said in a statement. "The 'at-large' precincts were included to increase participation in the highest concentration of shift workers _ many of whom are minorities."Culinary union secretary-treasurer D. Taylor said the plaintiffs were using "Floridian Republican tactics to suppress cooks, housekeepers, people of color and women."
So keeping minorities and poor folks from the polls is only worth a blip of a comment? C'mon. This is as ugly as it gets. First, the Clinton campaign tries to actively disenfranchise students in Iowa, they challenge poll monitors in New Hampshire, and now Clinton surrogates are attempting to suppress the minority vote in Nevada.
At this point, I don't see how I can support her as a general election nominee. And it's clear many lefties are beginning to feel the same. McCain is crushing her nationally by double digits in the Rasmussen poll released an hour ago, and part of the reason is that one in five Democrats won't even vote for her, while independents go to McCain by a +21 margin.
How is [McCain] more progressive (if that is a proper criterion) than any of the leading Democrats?
Few people would argue that McCain is more progressive. But a Hillary vs. McCain general election would bit one candidate who I think is an honorable person whose policies (most of them; I agree with his general stance on campaign finance and immigration) I disagree with against a candidate who I think is dishonorable but whose policies (again, most of them at least) I agree with. That isn't an easy call. I probably couldn't get myself to vote for a Republican, but I can't see myself voting for a candidate who stoops to the levels that Clinton is stooping in this campaign. I would probably just ignore the presidential election and do what I could to help Democrats running for Congress and various Governor's races.
Veal,
Who knows if we're all just blowing smoke when it comes to our fledgling plans to vote for McCain instead of Hillary come November. But I think it's indicative of how destructive Hillary's campaign could prove to be that so many straight-Dem voters are so repulsed by her campaign and so unhappy with the idea of her as president that we are even considering leaving the party, or staying home on election day, or voting for a man who would have us in Iraq for another century. Polls seem to confirm what is anecdotal here: that many many Americans would gladly vote for Obama if given the opportunity, but fewer would vote for Hillary. She continues to gloss over that truth as though people are simply too stupid or ADD to realize that she's so wonderfully competent and qualified, blah blah blah. It's insulting. The way she seeks to acquire support is cynical, manipulative, and poisonous.
Obama is talking tax populist talk to them in Las Vegas right now, they just showed a bit of it on CNN live. Interestingly, he said in a defensive manner (i.e., as if someone accused him) that he hasn't just now started addressing the issue now, that he's had his position out there all along.
Tin: I hear you. But the tenor of this thread and others on this site remind me of 1968, when the desire for Democratic purity resulted in the election of Richard Nixon. A repeat of that catastrophe would be disastrous for the nation and the Democratic Party, so before people start vowing to stay home or, worse, to vote for a guy who talks about cutting spending out of one side of his mouth while sanctioning a century-long occupation of Iraq out of another, they need to think about the consequences of their furies. I don't like Clinton and Hubert Humphrey wouldn't have been my first choice either. But you have to look at the alternatives, no?
If HRC is elected, that becomes the most left-wing any democrat can be; anyone further left will be demonized for four years. If McCain is elected, that is right-wing voice for the next four years that the left can stand apart from.
yoyo: To what end? What will be accomplished by standing apart. You're really willing to cede control of the White House for 12 years in order to stand apart from the Right? Why? If McCain moves the nation rightward (possible) and the courts rightward (a lead pipe cinch), how does that help the progressive movement?
How does it help if Clinton does the same thing? I'd rather have my competent, moderated conservatism implemented by a republican, thanks. At least then the the republicans will institutionally be amenable to fighting global warming and torture and the democratic party isn't busy purging any trace of left-wing sentiment from itself.
This is not so easy to put down for me. The benefits of the at-large are offered to only one concetrated group while leaving loads of others out of the voting.
People who work in retail malls, at the airport, in factories and warehouses, at non-strip culinary places are excluded from caucusing. Only those on the strip get this privilege. Voting should be a right available to all.
As for it being on Saturday, the teachers have a point. Usually the principal and some administrators are on site whenever a major event takes place. Same for janitors. Anyone who teaches a class aimed at adults needs to be there signing people up.
The best solution would be for everyone who works during caucus hours to go to the nearest caucus place and vote. The at-large system needs to be extended throughout the city, not just one area.
yoyo:
I just don't accept the proposition that HRC would move the nation rightward as much as McCain. Do you honestly think their administration's would be the same? Would they appoint the same judges (p.s. this really matters) or adopt the same domestic initiatives or the same foreign policy? I see no evidence to support that idea.
this isn't a 68 redux -- it's 1972 with richard daley and george meany pulling the union strings, and hrc playing the role of hhh.
this isn't just about the presidency -- it's about the party establishment that won't stand up against torture or habeas corpus or govt spying/telecom immunity continuing to run the party for the next four years.
if obama wins, there's at least a chance of some house-cleaning.
DaleA,
This would disenfranchise anyone working within 2.5 miles of the Strip. That's gotta be tens of thousands of people. As a restaurant worker, you can't take the time off during the dinner service to go vote. There are dozens of other job catergories that will be affected too, seeing as how many other people do shift work on the strip.
Face it. This is DIRTY FUCKING TRICKS. The teachers are trying to disenfranchise tens of thousands of poorer, darker-skinned people in order to specifically help Hillary. But what do you expect from a campaign run by a union-busting coporate lobbyist?
According to the LA Times, the machinist unions and airport employees are not thrilled by the special caucuses too. They are shift workers as well but the airport doesn't get an at-large caucus.
Funny how Obama is pro-union all of a sudden now that he has some union endorsements. It's as if his anti-union rhetoric in Iowas was a mere political ploy to help him win in a state where he had no union endorsements. Shocking.
It's as if his anti-union rhetoric in Iowa
I'm guessing you can't provide an example of that.
Now BET founder Bill Johnson is adding to the noise, and playing by the Clinton playbook:
"And to me, as an African-American," Johnson said, "I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood – and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book – when they have been involved."
Johnson later insisted that he was not referring to Obama's admitted drug use when he said "doing something in the neighborhood." He says he was referring to Obama's community work.
If that's true, Bill, why would you "not say what he was doing"? Why would that be too controversial a subject to bring up?
These people have no scruples.
Tin's got it. There is no excuse for this last comment from Johnson, which is clearly slanderous. How could anyone stoop so low? I think Bill Clinton's comments in New Hampshire were fair game: they called into question Obama's experience and ridiculed his lack of it. Johnson's comments amount to backdoor character assassination. It's Swiftboat innuendo, and it has to be condemned. If the Clinton's don't do that asap, they have ZERO credibility. Let's have a fight, but let's do it the right way. Ick.
Johnson is a disgrace to his race.
He is drooling on Bill's testicles...disgusting.
Bill must be responsible for him gaining ownership of BET or Viacom.
Johnson has enough money not to care..but he should be shunned by blacks from this day forward.
BET singlehandedly is responsible for the most vile and disgusting images of blacks around the globe.
I'm hoping this will backfire by pissing off all the casino workers who were on the fence, driving them to vote for Obama.
I agree with mcd...this whole primary is about party control and the backbiting will get serious over power.
Also, the simple solution for Dems dissatisfied with the Clinton's behavior (should they win the nomination) need to vote for McCain and then vote straight ticket Dem for all other national seats.
McCain tempered with a Dem Congress will not install radical judges, will not be able to dismantle choice rights, will not be able to invade any other countries...
In the general you have two choices. So once again we'd be back to who's the lessor of all evils?
Besides, it's likely the Dems could take the WH in 2012 if McCain were elected in 2008...his temper is notorious and he will completely lose his Rep base by then with policy.
The really simple solution is not vote for HRC. I'm good with either Obama or Edwards in that order.
Any black person who supports Hillary is an Uncle Tom. Full stop. You know it and we know it.
Comments closed January 27, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
No mention of the irony that Hillary has complained bitterly that caucuses "disenfranchise" voters? Or maybe that she could end this ridiculous lawsuit with a phone call?
Posted by Helter | January 13, 2008 11:13 AM