Clinton Supporters Try to Strip Culinary Workers from Caucusing

[grantcart]

From Christopher Beam at Slate



The main reason for the rage: The lawsuit is transparently political. The Nevada State Education Association hasn’t endorsed a candidate yet, but many of its leaders openly support Hillary Clinton. Now that the Culinary Workers union has endorsed Barack Obama, the nine new “At-Large” precincts set up in Vegas hotels—where a vast number of culinary workers will likely turn out—threaten Clinton’s prospects. The plaintiffs claim that these caucus-goers would have disproportionate influence compared to Nevadans who caucus in their home districts. But seeing as they never complained about this fact until the Culinary Workers endorsed Obama, their last-minute objection looks suspect.

http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/default.aspx

From the Baltimore Sun

The special precincts were created because thousands of hotel workers cannot leave their jobs in the middle of the day to go home to vote.The casino caucuses will be open to anyone, including cab drivers and employees at nonunion casinos, who is on duty midday Saturday within a 2 1/2 mile radius of the nine sites.

(A group of teachers opposing their union's lawsuit has published an open appeal asking that the lawsuit be dropped, saying in part:)

"This lawsuit is all about politics. It’s widely known that many of our union’s top officials support Senator Clinton and now that the Culinary Workers Union has endorsed Senator Obama, they’re using our union to stop Nevadans from caucusing for Senator Obama."

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008...

"These at-large locations were approved back in March of 2007, and no one raised any concerns about them for nearly a year," the letter says. "But now, our union is filing a lawsuit making the baseless charge that these at-large caucus locations are discriminatory, when the fact is they were set up to make sure as many Nevadans could caucus as possible."



The reason that the caucuses were allowed to meet at the Vegas hotels is to create an opportunity for many of the workers who have to work on Saturday a chance to participate near their work place. These rules were long established by all parties a long time ago and had especially strong Clinton support many months ago when Clinton thought she was going to walk away with the Culinary Workers Union endorsement."

Now they are getting their surrogates at the teachers union to change the rules at the last minute.

Clinton is a strong supporter of unions - - - - that support her. All others should be disenfranchised.

[mrdemocrat78]

1. Typical Clinton BS

You know damn well that if they had endorsed her, she woudn't give two shits about this.

And yes, I know the suit wasn't filed by Clinton... She just had the teachers union do it for her.

[lapfog_1]

2. Get ready for some...

Incoming!!!

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

This time, I'll just sit back with the

:popcorn:

[grantcart]

5. Is that the same pop corn T. O. prefers?

[lapfog_1]

8. Ok, I'm missing something... who is TO and why is he or she eating popcorn

I was just suggesting that, due to the flamefest from last night about the union voter suppression, that the O.P. needed to get his asbestos suit ready.

[Tunkamerica]

15. To is Terrell Owens, a wide receiver for the Cowboys

I don't know what type of popcorn he enjoys

[lapfog_1]

17. Ok dokey... I have no idea why TO entered the conversation

but whatever.

:crazy:

[grantcart]

21. T.O. made a famous remark about popcorn a few days ago

and when your avitar appeared eating popcorn it seemed a funny aside at the time, but if your not following NFL it would seem rather obscure

[David Dunham]

3. The lawsuit simply seeks to lower the disproportionate weight their votes would get

[grantcart]

4. Lets get serious

Hillary would be all for the disproportionate weight if they were weighed for Hillary.

The fact repeat fact is that Clinton's people were co-signers of this when they thought it broke for them.

I would be interested, as an ardent Edwards supporter, if you could find a similar instance where

Obama has tried to change the rules in a similar unfavorable situation.

[aquart]

11. Would you count petition challenges

Which knocked every single person running against him off the ballot? Another utterly ruthless but perfectly legal means of unleveling the playing field. You really should read up on the pleasant history of Obama in Illinois.

<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,1,57567.story>

I am charmed that you think Obama wouldn't be egging the teachers on if the shoe were on the other foot. He is extremely nimble in tactics.

<http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/do_you_believe_in_magic.html>

<http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/540781,CST-NWS-camp04.stng>

[indimuse]

19. great reporting! ha!

my o my....who knew?

[grantcart]

23. Yes if it was relevant to the discussion but it isn't

The point here was that having agreed to the rules Clinton is trying to change the rules to disenfranchise workers who will have no other chance to caucus - they can't vote absentee.

Your first link is about an article that in 1996 gained an advantage (that was apparently unneeded) in challenging registrations for proposed voters. It seems from the article that some rather peripheral candidate had come in with a large number of petitions that were not properly filled out. If you can't tell the difference between enforcing agreed upon rules to your advantage and getting surrogates to file a phony legal challenge to disenfranchise a large number of union voters only after they endorse your opponent then there is little point to continue such a vacuous discussion.

Your second link is completely off the point but it does show another Clinton supporter raising a race baiting charge against Obama.

The third link is so far off the discussion (a puff piece about Obama preparing volunteers for the Iowa caucuses) that I have to conclude that you put it in in error.

I have noticed your posts before and they have the same reflective Clinton apologist fever. Please continue. I hope that you become more and more prolific and your arguments more and more distended from reality. Just like Clinton's arrogance and her surrogates bizarre behavior you are all helping to solidify a "anybody but Hillary" movement.

If Hillary does not achieve 51% of the delegates in the primaries (which she will not) and everyone else hardens in their approach to her then she can only take credit for stupid moves like this legal challenge, bizarre surrogate statements, and completely unreasonable supporters like yourself, for forcing the decision to the convention where I am sure that it may go20 ballots but they will chose "anybody but Hillary".

The main thrust of your post is Obama is just as bad as Hillary. As an Edwards supporter your evidence doesn't support your charge against him, but more importantly you have not argued the premise, what Hillary is doing in this lawsuit is completely unethical.

[David Zephyr]

6. I will bookmark this thread as I know one day you'll be sick you posted such a thing.

Suppressing the vote.

Regardless, it will backfire big against Hillary. Another colossal mistake by the Clinton campaign.

Barack should sit at home; he can win on her errors now.

Americans don't like bullies. Mark my words, Hillary will lose Nevada after she loses South Carolina where it will be a landslide for Obama.

The backlash cometh.

[lapfog_1]

9. No, it does NOT

it asks specifically that the "at-large" precincts be done away with.

These at-large precincts already have the lowest weight of caucus goers to delegates to the state convention (same as large urban areas, and lower than rural areas).

The lawsuit seeks to have these "at-large" precincts declared illegal.

[lapfog_1]

18. Uhh, no, it's a totally bogus argument.

see my reply here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3139805&mesg_id=3139989

They compared apples to oranges... specifically, in the plaintiffs example, they compared a number of workers that will SHOW UP to caucus in the At-Large V. the number of registered democratic voters in their example home precinct. Showed up V. registered. And then they picked a very small number (261 out of over 4000) to demonstrate how this gives the At-Large voters a 10-1 advantage over home caucus goers.

Since we can't know how many will show up ahead of time, the Plan awards delegates to a Precinct (even the At-Large) based on how many voters either live or work at the location. For Urban areas (and all At-Large are urban) the ratio is 50 to 1, same as the home precinct in their example. Their argument of disproportionate representation is bogus.

[dailykoff]

7. Once a WalMart lawer always a WalMart lawyer.

Dunno who said it first but evidently it's true.

[cali]

10. she was never a WasMart lawyer

And she has a strong voting record on Union issues. Why do we have to twist the truth to oppose her? I think it's obvious this suit is representative of the way the Clintons do things, and it stinks. Isn't that enough?

[dailykoff]

12. She was a WalMart lawyer for six years.

Here's your link now go to bed willya?

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0207-34.htm

[cali]

13. No. She sat on the board for 6 years. She did not represent WalMart

there's a difference. I get sick of the misrepresentation of candidates.

[dailykoff]

14. A lawyer working for WalMart is a WalMart lawyer

unless she was stocking shelves perhaps. Anyway you'll have to chew this ridiculous bone alone because I'm turning it.

[Tunkamerica]

16. You have a point

[Cha]

22. It's about time..

4:30am..Jeeze! :)

[Adelante]

20. The plaintiffs needed to file paperwork by midnight last night - anyone know if they did it?

The lawsuit seeking to dismantle the nine at-large caucus sites because they would give improper weight to Culinary workers remained in limbo this afternoon.

Although the complaint was filed on Friday, the plaintiffs have still needed to file an emergency motion such as a temporary restraining order to get the matter heard swiftly in U.S. District Court, according to state Democratic Party officials.

Nothing had been scheduled so far late this afternoon, although the filing could occur electronically as late as midnight.

But nothing, it seems, will be acted on until tomorrow.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/early-line/2008/jan/14/lawsuit-waiting-be-heard/