25 Comments
Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Published Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2008 | 6:44 p.m.
Updated Thursday, Oct. 30, 2008 | 2:14 p.m.
President Bill Clinton today stepped up his attack on at-large caucus sites on the Las Vegas Strip, telling reporters in Oakland that people who caucus at those locations would have votes “worth five times as much as people who voted in their own precinct."
Is that right? Yes, mathematically, it is possible. In fact, the imbalance could be worse.
But it is also mathematically possible – and more likely - - that a caucus-goer in regular precincts off the Strip would have their support count for more than those on the Strip.
The calculations are highly complicated and they all depend on turnout Saturday.
An example:
If 400 people show up at a Strip caucus site on Saturday, under Democratic Party math, those 400 people would get to choose a total of 80 delegates (the number of delegates for an at-large site depends on the size of the turnout at each site.) Under this example, each person’s vote would be worth one-fifth of a delegate.
Now let’s turn to any of the more than 1,700 regular, off-Strip precinct precinct caucuses around the state. The number of delegates for each precinct is determined not by the number of people who turn out on Saturday, but by the number of registered Democrats in that precinct. An example: If a precinct has 400 registered Democrats, under the party’s formula, that precinct’s caucus site would be eligible for eight delegates. If on caucus day, all 400 people show up, they still get to choose a total of eight delegates, which means each person’s vote would be worth one-fiftieth of a delegate, which is far less than the value of a vote on the Strip.
So that makes Clinton’s point. The caucus could give more weight to voters at the Strip sites—which means, largely, the Culinary.
But wait. What if just one person shows up to caucus at that regular precinct site in our example? That person gets to choose all eight delegates.
Who’s got the advantage now?
EVERYONE----and I mean EVERYONE was aware of regulations a year ago----and agreed AMIABLY. Now lawsuits surfaced---just a week ago. Why? This caucus was inevitable. Must you punish the citizens of Las Vegas for selfish gains?
The Clinton campaign was clearly not involved in actually bringing the lawsuit because they would have been smart enough to realize it is futile to bring such a suit so late in the game and would have the potential to cause a backlash. As an undecided voter, I did actually go and read the lawsuit, and it makes sense why other unions feel disenfranchised. While I agree that it is not good to disenfranchise culinary workers, it is also not fair that other workers, such as teachers and nurses, do not get the same benefits. It means that not everyone has the chance to fairly represent their interests. And I have looked into the mathematical calculations, and it does have the potential to bias the election towards the interests of the Culinary Union. I am not saying the Union should not have a choice, but I believe strongly in one man, one vote. It is unfair that they get an opportunity to vote in a way that no other workers do, and it is unfair that their votes have the potential to give them over-representation. The only solution I see this late in the game would be to organize off-site caucuses that help other workers or allow all people to participate away from home base just as the Culinary workers do. Honestly, it seems that the caucus in Nevada was not especially well thought out. In addition to the possibility of disenfranchising workers who are not Culinary Union members, the Saturday caucus has also disenfranchised people of the Jewish faith among others.
Katy, are you a member of the Culinary Union? My recollection of the Clinton years, and I live in the DC metropolitan area and followed it closely, is that the republicans spent $70 million dollars investigating Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton and found no criminal wrongdoing. The impeachment of Clinton over his involvement with Monica Lewinsky was completely driven by partisan politics. As the House Judiciary Committee was inpeaching President Clinton, the Republican Chair of that Committee Henry Hyde, from Illinois had his long-time mistress sitting in the House Chamber. Newt Gingrinch, the Republican Speaker of the House was screwing one of his staffers, and his successor, Robert Livingston had to resign when it was learned that he too was screwing around.
No one in the Clinton administation was convicted.
So, please do not repeat the Republican lies. It does your candidate, Barack Obama no good.
I was just at a Democratic meeting in Maryland. Each candidate sent representatives - Edwards, Clinton, and Obama.
The representative for Obama, before the night was over, changed the minds of about 90% of that audience - every age group, from college students, to middle aged men and women, to people in their sixties and seventies.
POINT MADE.
The idea that I could have to deal with the Clintons and their shameful scandals in the next four years makes me want to leave the country!
The Clintons are like a bad dream! Now that Bill has become a bitter old man, it will be worst. The Clintons don't own the Democratic Party. They cannot and should not change the rules and bend the rule, and give a few lies here and there to get what they want.
Katy,
Clinton was impeached because he was so competent and popular that the republicans found no other way to bring him down. But he was not convicted. We as democrats should understand that better than others. We do not use slander and innuendo to punish people.
If we were to allow the Republican's wrongful impeachment of Bill Clinton to turn us against him and even more so against Senator Clinton, we would be allowing the malicious treachery of the republicans to win.
That is not what America is about. If you want to slander Senator Clinton for the Republicans' wrongful conduct, then you should just become a republican. That's what the swiftboaters did to Kerry. It's just plain wrong.
But you didn't answer my question, are you a member of the Culinary Union? or of the Obama campaing?
Mango is right. That's why caucuses are undemocratic. With a primary, if you can't be there on a particular day because of religious beliefs, because you are serving in the Armed Forces, because you are having an operation, or because you have to work that day, you can vote via absentee ballot. With a caucus, you have to be there or lose your right to vote.
I'm from NY and there is no way I'm voting for Clinton. The conduct of Hillary's attack dog Bill and his tirades just smells of people who are in this for themselves and their own egos and while it makes for great theatre, it doesnt create the coalition and inspiration that will be needed to bring about the change americans want to see. I want to turn the page on that whole era and on the DLC as a whole. In the last two elections the democratic base hasnt proven enough to bring about a victory. Either democrats turn the page and elect someone that can get more people involved and appeal to independents or believe it or not we could blow this one too. Bill Clinton's conduct has been absolutely disgusting and disingenious. Its all about him. I really think he's lost it.
1) If you are going to make arguments based on facts, you should check your facts first. The Senate that acquitted Clinton had a majority Republican. There were 55 Republican Senators and 45 Democratic members. The Senate Majority Leader was Trent Lott, Republican.
["With Articles 1 and 3, pertaining to perjury and obstruction of justice, having been approved by the House of Representatives, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott announced that President Clinton's impeachment trial would begin in the Senate on Thursday, January 7, 1999.
Remarkably, the partisan rancor, which had been so evident during the House proceedings, appeared at first to be somewhat diminished in the Senate as the 55 Republican and 45 Democratic senators began their solemn duties, sitting in silent judgment of Clinton with the potential outcome being the first-ever removal of an elected President."
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates...
2) Al Gore lost because he ran away from Clinton. He also lost because the Republican-appointed Supreme Court inserted itself into the recount and prohibited the full recount. Gore wouldn't have had a chance if Clinton hadn't left office with a surplus and with nearly 70% approval rating.
You may disagree with the Clintons but Bill and Hillary have always run for office to try to fix what's wrong and to help the people. Bill didn't govern in order to make his friends richer as the the current Bush has.
I am on my precinct caucus committee, so I understand a bit of the strange math that goes into a caucus. What I don't understand is why the casino caucuses are the only ones that are getting attention. They actually could be the most fair in awarding delegates because it is based on attendance. All the rest of the caucuses across the state, especially small or rural ones, are completely unfair. There could be only 1 registered democrat in a precinct that is mostly republican and if that person shows up, he/she gets to claim a whole delegate for his/her candidate. Is that fair? No. Not at all. Other precincts might have a hundred or more people show up to fight over perhaps 8 or 9 delegates. And then you could have two different 9 delegate precincts, one with 100 attendees and one with 20. Despite the difference in attendance, both get just 9 delegates, so that sure isn't one person, one vote. If we are going to have lawsuits about one person, one vote, then we should look at the whole stupid system, not focus on casino caucuses just because it doesn't benefit the Clinton machine. This is why I know that this lawsuit is just an effort to suppress the vote. If it was based on principle, the whole caucus system would be thrown out. I think we should have a primary, but I also think we should not change the rules in this caucus at the last minute just to benefit one candidate... Hillary. Boy is she ruthless.
Hillary has done nothing but lie and smear this entire campaign. There is only one person who has the right character and experience. Congratulations to Time for having the courage to tell the truth.
Time Magazine - Barack Obama's Political Experience - http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/...
What about the Father of Monica Lewinsky and her mother. Who did they called? What news paper did the parents of Monica went to?
How would you like Monica Lewinsky to be your daughter? How would you like Bill Clinton putting a cigar in her vigina, and smoking it? We are talking about a married man. Would you like your wife or your husband to do that to you? Would you not divorce her or him?
And Clinton looking at the American people in the eyes and saying: “I did not have sexually relationship, with that woman". You call that popularity? Do you know how many people are today in American prison because of oral sex or lying to the grand jury?
Now I will ask this question: what is worse; lying to the grand jury or lying to the whole country? I don't understand how a person with normal memory and clear judgment will want to have another four of the Clintons in the White house.
We (democrats) are complaining today about Bush. Do you know who gave us Bush? It is Clinton. Al Gore lost the elections because of Clinton behavior in the white house. Now let reward the Clintons and send them back in the white house. My God are we all crazy or the idea to have a woman president is too romantic to resist?
Holyness the Clinton!!!
In a news conference Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting QB for the Packers this coming Sunday. Deanna asserts that she is qualified to be starting QB because she has spent the past 16 years married to Brett while he played QB for the Packers. During this period of time she became familiar with the definition of a corner blitz, and is now completely comfortable with other terminology of the Packers offense. A survey of Packers fans shows that 50% of those polled supported the move.
Does this sounds idiotic and unbelievable to you? Well, Hillary Clinton makes the same claims as to why she is qualified to be President and 50% of democrats polled agreed. She has never run a City, County, or State.
When told Hillary Clinton has experience because she has 8 years in the white house, Dick Morris stated "so has the pastry chef".
Hillary has 2 TV ads here.
One says that she's got 35 years of experience. The other says she found her voice just the other day.
Only in Wonderland [er, Clintonland] could these two claims co-exist.
CHernan, if the acquital in the Senate was good enough for you, then the the imprachment in the House also stands. It was done by by the book and by the representatives of a majority of Americans.
Do you disagree that Bill Clinton is despicable and did not deserve to occupy the Oval office? You've got to be really desparate to support this guy.
If you saw Bill's statement in Oakland, he was redfaced and talking fast. You know for sure he's spinning when these props show up at the same time.
All he was missing is the wagging index finger.
DO YOU PEOPLE REALLY WANT 8 MORE YEARS OF THIS GARBAGE? OY!
Time Magazine - Obama's Political Experience
Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2008
Obama's Varied Record
By AP/CHRISTOPHER WILLS
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/...
(SPRINGFIELD, Ill.) — By some measures, Barack Obama has a thin record. He's a Senate newcomer who has never worked in the White House, governed a state or run a business.
Democratic presidential rival Hillary Rodham Clinton points to his resume as evidence that Obama is not ready for the White House. "He was a part-time state senator for a few years, and then he came to the Senate and immediately started running for president," she says dismissively.
Obama's accomplishments are more substantial and varied than Clinton suggests. And he has a longer record in elected office than she does, as a second-term New York senator.
Obama was a community organizer and led a voter-registration effort in Chicago that added tens of thousands of people to the rolls. He was a civil rights attorney and taught at one of the nation's premier universities. He helped pass complicated measures in the Illinois legislature on the death penalty, racial profiling, health care and more. In Washington, he has worked with Republicans on nuclear proliferation, government waste and global warming, amassing a record that speaks to a fast start while lacking the heft of years of service.
The Illinois Democrat likes to quote something Bill Clinton once said: "The truth is, you can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience. Mine is rooted in the real lives of real people, and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change."
After college, Obama moved to Chicago for a low-paying job as a community organizer. He worked with poor families on the South Side to get improvements in public housing, particularly the removal of asbestos.
"Nobody else running for president has jumped off the career track for three or four years to help people," said Jerry Kellman, who first hired Obama as a community organizer.
Obama also fought for student summer jobs and a program to keep at-risk children from dropping out of school. More importantly, say those who worked with Obama, he showed people how to organize and confront powerful interests.
"He had to train residents to stand up for their own rights," said former organizer Loretta Augustine-Herron, who was part of Obama's Developing Communities Project.
Obama left that job to get a law degree. Afterward, he returned to Chicago and ran Project VOTE. The organization recruited hundreds of registrars to sign up new voters, particularly within the city's black population. Registration jumped nearly 15 points between the 1992 primary and the general election.
The registration wave was credited with making Carol Moseley Braun the first black female senator and helping Bill Clinton carry Illinois in his first presidential race. It also got insiders talking about Obama as a political candidate.
Obama then spent several years focusing on the law, both as an attorney at a small firm specializing in civil rights and as a lecturer on constitutional law at the University of Chicago.
As an attorney, he was on the team that successfully sued the state of Illinois for failing to implement a federal voter-registration law. Obama also worked on case of a whistle-blower who lost her job after exposing waste and corruption in a medical research project. The whistle-blower ended up with a $5 million settlement.
Obama was elected to the Illinois state Senate in 1996, when Democrats were in the minority. He proposed hundreds of new laws, including universal health care, tougher gun control and expanded welfare, but saw most of them spiked by Republican leadership.
He did have some successes, though — particularly in passing legislation sharply restricting the gifts that Illinois politicians could accept from lobbyists. Illinois has notoriously weak government ethics laws, and the Gift Ban Act was the first major new restriction since the Watergate era.
Obama also helped set up Illinois' "KidCare" program that provided health care to children in families that did not qualify for Medicaid.
John Bouman, president of the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, said Obama's work helped make the program more consumer-friendly. He also said Obama was often willing to give up credit for the legislation if that helped win Republican support.
"It tells you something that as a relatively junior member in the minority party, he was an important negotiator," Bouman said.
When Democrats gained a majority in the Senate, Obama's political mentor, Senate President Emil Jones, gave him high-profile assignments, including two contentious issues involving police — videotaped interrogations and racial profiling.
Police weren't happy about recording their interrogations of murder suspects or having to study racial bias in traffic stops. Initially, they opposed both pieces of legislation.
But Obama made clear that something was going to pass with or without their support. Ultimately, police groups endorsed both bills and they won unanimous approval in the Senate.
Obama was generally regarded as an effective and practical, although decidedly liberal, state lawmaker. One of his Republican colleagues was so wowed that he has appeared in an Obama campaign ad, but others aren't impressed by his legislative record.
"I would say it was run of the mill, honestly," said Sen. Christine Radogno, R-Lemont, who entered the legislature at the same time Obama did.
Obama was a part-time state senator in that he served in the Illinois legislature at the same time he practiced law. He became a state lawmaker in 1997, four years ahead of Hillary Clinton's entrance into elected office, as U.S. senator.
When Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate, he said he wished to get things done rather than grab headlines, and cited Hillary Clinton as the sort of workhorse he wanted to be.
He teamed with Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., to study the dangers of nuclear proliferation and pass legislation meant to keep nuclear material from falling into the hands of terrorists.
Obama also joined with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., after Hurricane Katrina to improve oversight of federal spending.
And he shared billing with a Republican presidential hopeful when he joined Arizona Sen. John McCain in sponsoring legislation that called for sharp, mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. The effort failed.
Comments that are cut and pasted the same every where, are unrelated and very long, that were not even writen by the commentor, should be removed. They completely nullify any meaningful discussion on the thread with clutter.
The law suit happened after the culinary made an endorsement very late in the day. It should have been a precondition of these sites that they remain neutral. The formula for these sites should also be proportional to turnout in the rest of the state.
Then, these sites would have been about access to voting for workers. As it stands, they are about rigging a nomination, which is undemocratic, unconstitutional, and hopefully illegal.
How come it was approved last March by 4 of the 5 individuals filing the lawsuit?
Ok...ok. After reading all of the posts on here...i rushed to get my point of view on here. As someone from NY...who has lived here all of my life i have to say i am appalled by the comments about the facts...and just the facts about Bill Clinton's Presidency. Yes...he was acquitted. Sure....most of those charging him with the crimes were from the other political party.
Yet...the fact of the matter is....he
LIED. That fact you cannot get around. He lied under oath. He had sex with another woman while in office (no matter what your definition of sex is....he did it, lets get real about that)...and LIED about it. Fine....he was not charged with that, was not impeached....but the facts remain.
I have lost all respect for bill after this while lawsuit came to light. There is NO WAY he had nothing to do with this. What...its just a coincidence?
Its the Clinton Political machine at work people. If you vote her in...be ready. Be ready for that machine to spew more and more negative ads left and right as November comes closer.
And as a NYer...i have to say that as my senator...Hillary has done NOTHING to represent me. If she had...she would never had voted for the war with the.. intelligence (or lack of) that was brought before her on why we should give bush a green light to do so. ANY OF US....given that information would have said...WHAT, ARE YOU KIDDING ME???
So people....Lets be real. And think about it. Think about if we want to go backwards or forwards. If we want Bush then Clinton, then Bush and Clinton yet again.
BREAK THE CYCLE!!
Bill Clinton is an arrogant hypocrite who would do and say anything to get what what he wants. He is also developing the irritating habit of getting angry and defensive at anyone who dares question his and Hillary's entitlement to eight more years in the White House, sticking his finger in peoples' faces and lecturing them as though they were disobedient children. I had no problem with Bill Clinton during his presidency - in fact I voted for him twice - but as this campaign continues I have come increasingly to wish he would just go away.