More on Hillary Disenfranchising Working Class Voters in NV

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

From the Huffington Post:

As this link shows, the Clinton campaign is supporting, if not actually inciting, a Nevada State Teachers Association lawsuit against the Culinary Workers Union. The reason? The Culinary Workers Union has arranged for its members to caucus in their workplaces, to cast their votes in the hotels and casinos that support that state's economy instead of taking time off to get to polling places--at the risk of getting fired.

That lawsuit was filed right after the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Obama.

Gosh. What a coincidence. It's an unfair disadvantage, the teachers union lawsuit says--they are supporting Hillary--to let all those maids and bellboys vote while they are on the job.

The caucus is on the 19th. It's a Saturday. I guess the teachers are going to be--really busy compared to those maids and bellboys?

Read the whole thing:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-de-zengotita/a-defining-moment-for-the_b_81502.html

The Clinton campaign's conduct in this matter is nothing short of disgusting.

[Cha]

1. I'd expect nothing more

from the clintons...who gives a shit..they're gonna do what they feel is best for them..

I'm thinking some how..Obama is going to beat them by just being smarter bacause they're not showing any intelligence, whatsoever.

[EFerrari]

7. In Spanish there is a saying, "their claws have come out". n/t

[madeline_con]

2. Unbelievable

First, it should be against federal law to penalize any worker for voting during the work day. We get an excuse for jury duty, how is electing a president any less important?

Second, if people can vote without leaving work, even better.

Third, on a Saturday? Why are teachers bitching? :shrug:

[TwilightZone]

3. Newsflash: many, many teachers work on Saturdays.

When does the author suppose that they grade assignments, lesson-plan, etc.? When does the author suppose they work the part-time jobs that are required to supplement those wonderful teachers' salaries?

Yes, just because school is not in session, they just sit around all day.

I love it when people make blanket statements about something about which they know nothing.

[Yael]

5. Their time is upon their own command

Don't give me that, I used to work for the NEA. Yes -- they spend a mountain of time "off hours" but that is under their control.

[EFerrari]

6. Unlike other workers, most teachers aren't stuck at the work site

on Saturday. And save it, I've been a teacher.

[papau]

8. the teachers union includes all shift bound clerical and maintence/cleaning help

[EFerrari]

11. The vast majority of whom are not on site on Saturdays. n/t

[Yael]

4. With Big Dawg's stamp of approval, no less

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/14/578200.aspx

*sigh*

[cloudythescribbler]

9. (from another thread) Here's the statement of a legal expert on why the suit is frivolous

Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin, a constitutional law professor who does voting rights cases (he’s also chair of Montgomery County for Obama and running to serve as a Delegate), told me that the case is without merit: “The Equal Protection claim in this case is silly and would be thrown out even if it hadn’t been raised in the eleventh hour in a transparently political way. The claim boils down to the argument that it discriminates against teachers and other professionals to set up polling places in casinos for people who work there since these employees then get an unfair advantage in access to the polls. On this curious theory, of course, it would violate Equal Protection for some people to live two miles away from a polling place while others live on the same block. The irony is that most polling places are in public schools ! Setting up polling stations in workplaces where there are tens of thousands of voters who would otherwise be unlikely to vote is perfectly rational. It’s also a public policy that progressives should celebrate and duplicate, not try to thwart.”

(quoted from THE NATION)

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

10. Thanks -- do you have a link?

[cloudythescribbler]

19. Here's a link (to the other DU thread w/copy & link to NATION magazine)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x331998

[Emit]

13. Also, at least two of the teachers/union members were present at the meeting

back in March when this at-large caucus site was agreed to -- the minutes of the meeting were posted in another thread which showed their attendance and the issue passed unanimously. Why didn't they complain then when they had a platform and opportunity to oppose this at-large caucus site for the Culinary workers?

[Cha]

17. Thank you, cloudy...this is

the first thing that I've seen that makes me feel better about this. So, hopefully, all it's doing is showing how suppressive and desperate the clingons are.

[candymarl]

12. I wasn't sure why

so many objected to the union busting Mark Penn. Now I know. Apparently Hillary thinks she can win w/o the unions. Sadly, she may be right. Unions have 1/10 the power they had BR (Before Reagan).

[upi402]

14. Rupert Murdock will have the propagandists polish this turd n/t

[CoffeeCat]

15. I had a conversation with my husband about this...

...tonight and it was very depressing.

It went something like this:

Me: "I can't believe that the Clinton camp is deliberately disenfranchising voters
from the NV caucuses. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. The voters of
Nevada will see what she's doing and reject her. It won't work". :(

Husband: "Of course it will work. Are you kidding me? If Hillary succeeds in
preventing 2,000-3,000 Obama supporters from caucusing, then it works". x(

Me: ((jaw drops)) "But the rest of Nevada will see how manipulative she is and that she's
a win-at-all-cost piranha in a pantsuit." :wow:

Husband: "Of course they'll see it, and that affects Hillary how? She'll be on to the
next state, what does she care if the people of Nevada don't fall in love with her?
Honey, this is politics. Her goal is to win. If she manages to keep 3,000 Obama
supporters from caucusing, then she's won the day...and it's on to South Carolina we go, where
she'll have more dirty tricks and political ploys awaiting". :eyes:

Me: "Well that sucks. And since when did you become so cynical?" :P

Husband: "When politics first became cynical...oh...like during the Paleozoic Era." :evilgrin:

Me: "So, you're saying that trilobites engaged in disenfranchising caucus goers?" :crazy:

Husband: "That's exactly what I'm saying." :)


:)

I'd like to believe that this will backfire big time on Hillary--because dirty tricks should
never go unrecognized. However, maybe my husband is right. I guess we'll see.

[Cha]

18. Post # 9 has

an exerpt from The Nation that shows why the "lawsuit" is frivolous..so many the lawsuit will be a bust and Nevada and the rest of our Nation will see what suppressive desperate politicos the clintons are.

[pauldg0]

16. Hey all, look at this article with poll from the huffinton..

...Accounts of Edwards Electoral Death Are Perhaps Premature
Posted January 14, 2008 | 02:43 PM (EST)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read More: Barack Obama, Democratic Primaries, John Edwards, John Edwards Nevada, Nevada Caucus, Breaking Politics News



Perhaps all the folks who keep wanting to count Edwards out, should note this poll on Nevada (hat tip David Sirota):

Email
Print
Comment
Barack Obama: 32 percent

Hillary Clinton: 30 percent

John Edwards: 27 percent


It's still close, and Edwards' delegate count is just fine, thanks. He's in the running to be kingmaker at the convention, and if something unpredictable happens, he's still within distance to win it all. He'd be a fool to step out now. Nor does the fact that South Carolina is polling badly for him mean much--it's only one state.

Next, a word for Obama supporters who want Edwards to step out, from Krugman:

Anyway, on Sunday Mr. Obama came out with a real stimulus plan. As was the case with his health care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right.
For example, the Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals, and emphasizes across-the-board tax cuts over both aid to the hardest-hit families and help for state and local governments. I know that Mr. Obama's supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy.
I would add that he also uses right wing frames far more often that the other two, his senior economic advisers are virtualy reactionaries and talk of "hope" doesn't make you a progressive. (Remember Mr. "Morning in America" Reagan if you are inclined to disagree.)

It remains unclear to me that Edwards' supporters would go to Obama if Edwards dropped out, but the bottom line is simpler--there is no reason for Edwards to drop out. He's still in the running, and if he wants to choose which of the other candidates wins if he doesn't, walking into the convention with a block of delegates large enough to do it is the best way.



And Obama isn't Edwards--he is significantly to the right of Edwards and on the fight/compromise spectrum he is actually the most conciliatory of the three candidates. Edwards supporters want a fighter; that isn't Obama.

Edwards is alive and kicking, and a force to be reckoned with. There's no good reason for him to ever drop out of the nomination contest. Time for Obama supporters to tend to their own campaign, not to Edwards.