Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Sun File Photo
Culinary Workers Union Local 226 Secretary-Treasurer D. Taylor mingles before an appearance by Sen. Hillary Clinton during a campaign swing in August through Southern Nevada.
By J. Patrick Coolican (contact) 
, David McGrath Schwartz, Michael Mishak
Sunday, Jan. 13, 2008 | 2 a.m.
Nevada’s largest and most politically active union fired back Saturday at an attempt to shut down caucus sites on the Strip intended to allow its workers to caucus Jan. 19, when state Democrats make their choice for a presidential nominee. Culinary Union Secretary-Treasurer D. Taylor demanded that Nevada’s Democratic elected officials and the presidential campaigns denounce a lawsuit that would eliminate the nine “at-large” caucus locations designed for shift workers, both union and nonunion. Shutting down the sites, which allow anyone who works within 2 1/2 miles of one to caucus there, would undermine the legitimacy of the caucus, he said.
By Taylor’s logic, the lawsuit could threaten the future of Nevada’s early presidential voting status.
“This is an attempt to wholesale disenfranchise people who are largely women, largely people of color, and people who do the kind of work that makes this town go,” Taylor said. The campaigns and senior Democratic officials “have to condemn this. Anything short of that will clearly be a sign that they obviously think it’s OK to disenfranchise voters.”
The Clinton campaign, which unsuccessfully sought the 60,000-member union’s endorsement, declined to take up Taylor’s offer.
“Not for us to decide,” said Rory Reid, Clinton’s state chairman, in an e-mail to the Sun. “We just want the process to be fair.”
The campaign of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who received the endorsement last week, quickly condemned the lawsuit.
“We believe as a party, and a country, we should be looking for ways to include working men and women in the electoral process, not disenfranchise them,” said David Cohen, the campaign’s state director.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the Nevada State Education Association and five party activists, claims that those voting in at-large precincts would have too much weight compared with those voting at their neighborhood polling places, violating the equal protection law of the U.S. Constitution. It also claims the at-large precincts violate state law in the way they were drawn.
But a major premise of the lawsuit appears to be false, according to a Sun analysis.
Even if there is considerably high turnout for instance, 10,000 people those at-large precincts will provide just 6 percent of the state’s overall delegates. Because Nevada is holding a caucus, not a primary, the winner will be based on the number of delegates a candidate receives, not the total number of votes.
The lawsuit was filed Friday, seemingly timed to coincide with Obama’s visit to the Culinary’s union hall, where he accepted the endorsement. On its face, the lawsuit helps the Clinton campaign by suggesting the caucus process is inherently unfair and distracting voters from Obama’s endorsement and his intense focus on Nevada.
The plaintiffs have ties, albeit indirect, to the Clinton campaign. Dan Hart, chief political consultant to the state teachers union, has run Reid’s campaigns in the past and is currently an unpaid adviser to him. Some of the activists were active backers of state Sen. Dina Titus’ failed 2006 bid for governor. Titus, a Democratic national committeewoman, has endorsed Clinton. She did not return a call seeking comment.
As The New York Times reported Saturday, the teachers union’s deputy executive director, Debbie Cahill, was a founding member of Clinton’s Nevada Women’s Leadership Council.
Those ties and the timing of the suit, coming months after the caucus plan was approved by the Democratic National Committee but days after the endorsement threatened to boomerang on the New York senator.
Earlier in the week Clinton had sought to divide Culinary membership by campaigning in a neighborhood rich with the union’s members, and on Saturday, at an event in Las Vegas, appealed to Hispanics, who make up 40 percent of the Culinary’s membership.
But any perception that the Clinton campaign was trying to prevent Culinary workers from caucusing could unite the state’s largest and most politically active union, which has shown some subtle signs of fracture. Some members have publicly expressed support for Clinton.
The origin of the lawsuit is unclear. Hart, the political consultant, said he took the idea to the teachers union, but would not say who brought it to his attention. “I asked (the teachers union) if they wanted to be involved, because it seemed unfair how Culinary members are given preference in this caucus, and their members are disadvantaged,” he said.
Taylor, the Culinary leader, accused Hart of attempting to enlist two other unions in the lawsuit.
Hart said he “talked to a lot of people about this. I didn’t know the Culinary had declared it a sin to talk about this.”
Hart said attempting to uncover the suit’s origin missed the point of the complaint: The at-large precincts are unfair to Democrats who are not Culinary members.
That assessment drew the ire of the state Democratic Party. In a statement, the party made it clear that any shift worker union or nonunion within 2 1/2 miles of an at-large precinct location may participate in the caucuses, including dealers, gas station attendants, construction workers, retail workers and hospitality workers.
A spokesman for Sen. Harry Reid, the father of Rory Reid and the public face of the caucus, declined to defend the state party. In an e-mail, he told the Sun: “We haven’t seen the lawsuit yet but, given the politics at play, Sen. Reid is going to stay out of the middle of it and leave it to the courts.”
Reid’s neutrality, which is seen by Obama supporters as a tilt toward Clinton, illustrated the now deep divisions within the Democratic coalition.
Many of those named in the lawsuit hold various positions in the state and Clark County parties.
John Cahill is the chairman of a party activist group and the elected Clark County public administrator. “It is absolutely, in my opinion, critical that whoever wins Nevada leaves here with no cloud hanging over them,” he said. “No cheating or manipulating in any way. And that it’s a level playing field.”
Clinton herself criticized the caucus process after losing Iowa, saying many people who had to work at the time were disenfranchised. After telling a Reno Gazette-Journal reporter Saturday that she wanted as many people as possible to participate in Nevada, she said she has no opinion on the lawsuit. Dialing down expectations and questioning the fairness of the caucus process allows Clinton to make a loss here more palatable.
Taylor said eliminating the at-large sites would be unfair to workers on the Strip, and called the lawsuit “Republican, Floridian tactics for voter suppression.”
He continued: “The reason why the caucus came here was for union and minority representation. In this swipe, they are negating the exact reason they would bring the caucus here. It is very telling if they don’t absolutely condemn it. If the lawsuit goes through it will completely discredit the legitimacy of the caucus.”
Taylor is absolutely correct: senior party leaders (i.e., Harry Reid) must denounce this Rovian sleaze. I hope Hart didn't sell his soul too cheaply.
Read the lawsuit, actually it makes me wonder what the OBAMA crowd is up to. If you look, one of the major beefs is that...magically inside these new districts (which were just RECENTLY announced, NOT provided for in the original agreement), delegates are assigned for every 5 voters. 5. Meanwhile everywhere else in the state you get a delegate for every 50 voters. On top of that, only workers at the major casinos are allowed to vote there (aka only the ones who would have to have major union representation). That's why the teachers' unions are also suing, because they have to work during the election hours too and AREN'T getting any special treatment. Aren't you even the least bit surprised that these special districts to benefit voters....only benefit casino workers?
Once again, Clinton throws a monkeywrench into the democratic process. You can place a sure bet that had the Culinary Union endorsed her, this would have never seen the light of day.
The local NEA, since they're doing such a great job at educating kids, now uses their members funds to bring a lawsuit to benefit a few leaders annointed candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Get back to classroom and shut up!
It is my hope that the union leadership will tell their members in English, Spanish or whatever that the "great Senator from the east" doesn't give a darn about them and their votes, but just wants the White House by any means possible. How about the fact that chief "Pollster and Trickster", Mark Penn's firm represents a large property owner in Vegas who has refused to have the Culinary Union represent their employees and even grant access to them?
Wake up Nevada, you have nothing to lose but your voice. This one gets hijacked and you'll never host an early primary again.
Every campaign was in on the process, they ALL wanted more Strip sites and more Strip delegates, and they ALL signed off on the plan.
Every union in the state supported the Strip sites.
Every single elected Democratic politician in the state supported the Strip sites
This entire process was designed to benefit HRC by the corrupted Reid/Collins regime.
It backfired on them.
Every campaign signed off on the formula long ago and so did the DNC.
I am unaware of any teacher in this state working on Saturday btw and nearby workers can use these sites, not just Resort workers...within 2.5 miles, you can use them.
It is central to the democratic process that people vote where they live, not where they work. If Nevada wants to be revolutionary and allow this, that would be fine; but it would have to be for everyone, not just one small location. The other thing disturbing about this, is that people don't actually have to prove they are working at the time. i.e. If their vote gets more delegates on the strip, why would they vote at home? If they had to prove they were actually working at the time, or immediately before or after, and if the votes were counted and alloted delegates in the same manner, then we could assume this was just about workers. Without these provisions and without the option available to all workers in the state, it is certainly about giving some voters more rights, and more power. The caucus process is flawed with regards to voters not being able to cast ballots before hand or any time throughout a reasonable polling process. Giving some workers more delegates and an indescriminate ability to vote where they work or where they live, makes it less undemocratic, not more.
These strip precincts are the same as if, in a general election, the US only allowed US citizens in the EU to vote, and gave them the entire delegate allotment for the total number of all citizens living outside the US, while not allowing US citizens living anywhere else outside the country, but the EU, to vote for those delegates. On the surface, it seems very undemocratic and precedent setting.
regardless of which candidate you support for the nomination -- ALL OF NEVADE should be outraged at this flagrant attempt to disenfranchise voters
----------------
As to Senator Clinton: you could say she was FOR everyone voting (against disenfranchisement) until she was against it! (now trying to BLOCK members of a union that did not endorse her from voting)
----
and worse -- Senator Clinton's Nevada attorney filed the lawsuit - yet she claims she was not aware of this??
This from a woman who said she took control of her campaign and "found her voice" in NH??
NEVADA CULINARY UNION - LISTER TO HER VOICE - SHE IS TELLING YOU - YOU DON'T MATTER
Don't you all get it? Culinary people are not the center of the earth. Each person should have EQUAL access. Fair is the key word here. Some comments have an ugliness that says winning is everything. Guard against alowing mean spiritedness to distroy the Democratic Party from within. Talk to the issues and their solutions. The Republicans listen with glee when good Democrates squable to the point of self distruction
Once again Hairless Reid has turned Nevada into the laughingstock of the world! Anybody still remember the Fox debate fiasco?
The layers of his own vast political onion are just starting to peel off. This is just one layer, folks. We've watched him make a mockery of the U.S.Senate and cower to Bush. Now we can see what he has done to Nevada as well.
If we ever hope to live in a real American democracy we have to get rid of Hairless Reid.
He runs for re-election again in 2010. Vote against him! Vote Republican, vote Green party; I don't care. Just vote anything but Reid in 2010.
I said it once, and I say it again. Culinary made a horrendous mistake, and now is in risk to loose all the political clout that they had for so long cultivated. The national union told them to stay out of it, but Mr. Taylor in a transparent act of political opportunism, hitch Culinary behind Obama's wagon. The problem is that the vast majority of the Culinary members that can vote, about 50% of the membership, do not support Obama. The odd now are that Clinton will win the Nevada caucus. Culinary will have egg in it face, because of the boasting that they could deliver the votes. Fine mess Mr. Taylor got the union in. He should loose his job!
Once again, the Clintons will do whatever it takes to win an election, voters be damned. The end result is that they will not only alienate and divide now, but in the general election as well. The old saying used to go "penny wise and pound foolish". How does her refusal to stand up and be accountable get her into the White House?
YES WE CAN!!!!!!!
The vast, vast majority of the people heading to the Strip caucuses will be the underlings of the Culinary -- dishwashers, hotel room maids, cooks, etc. -- who are the least paid, and most vulnerable to intimidation. And the Culinary leadership has always used them to organize other hotels and vote for their choices.
The Culinary has full time paid organizers bringing in its masses of members working the low-paying jobs, who will HAVE to raise their hands at the caucus sites for Obama, under the watchful (and threatening) eyes of the Culinary organizers.
I hope those Strip caucus sites receive a lot of media attention because the Culinary's tactics there will resemble something out of the old Soviet Union, when people casting ballots in boxes under the eyes of Communist Party operatives had to use a special-colored ballot for the Communist Party leader, and another type of ballot to vote against him, making it obvious whom that voter was for.
To Jaz, #2: You need to get your facts straight. You ask what the Obama crowd is up to? This plan was approved by the DNC MONTHS ago, long before Obama had been endorsed by the Culinary Union, and in fact when that endorsement was very much up for grabs. The real question is, what is the Teachers' Union up to? Why did they wait until after their candidate's opponent got the Culinary Union's endorsement to file this lawsuit?
you say that "Once again, the Clintons will do whatever it takes to win an election, voters be damned. The end result is that they will not only alienate and divide now, but in the general election as well."
what exactly are you referring to? the only thing the clintons have ever done to win elections is explain what they believe in and then delivering on their promises, which brought us prosperity, a better country and peace.
Also, Taylor's implication -- his use of the race card -- that this would turn back "people of color," and women, rings hollow and is merely a calculated distraction. It begs the question.
He and the Culinary must answer WHY the Culinary-dominated 9 precincts on the Strip were able to be awarded 10 times the number of delegates available, compared to the hundreds of other Nevada precincts during the caucuses.
Of course that is unfair to ALL of the candidates. SOMEONE had to file a lawsuit over this.
Don't Drink the Obama Koolaid
Boy what a scheme - voting where you work in a caucus, no less. How un-Democratic is that? So, you essentially have two choices. You can vote for the candidate who is not your choice but one that your union is supporting and you can go on with your job, or you stick with your principles and vote for the candidate your union is not supporting and then wait for the other shoe to drop.
So these are the politics of change! Sounds like a surfdom to me. Sounds like the change is all the way back to the 1800's. I guess if you think the status quo is good, vote for Obama but if you want real change, if you want the freedom to vote for your principles, then perhaps you should vote for Clinton. One thing we can be sure of, if Obama were to have a vote in this, he would most likely vote PRESENT.
regardless of which candidate you support for the nomination -- ALL OF NEVADE should be outraged at this flagrant attempt to disenfranchise voters
----------------
As to Senator Clinton: you could say she was FOR everyone voting (against disenfranchisement) until she was against it! (now trying to BLOCK members of a union that did not endorse her from voting)
----
and worse -- Senator Clinton's Nevada attorney filed the lawsuit - yet she claims she was not aware of this??
This from a woman who said she took control of her campaign and "found her voice" in NH??
NEVADA CULINARY UNION - LISTER TO HER VOICE - SHE IS TELLING YOU - YOU DON'T MATTER
You have said all that needs to be said.Just another Clinton lie IMO
AW,
It's Nevada, not Nevade, but thank you for your opinion. Contact the local teacher's union mentioned in the lawsuit. I'm sure they can help you find an affordable tutor.
Not only can they help you with your spelling; but as is evidenced by your inability to read and comprehend, you might ask for help in that area as well.
By the way, where does it say this lawsuit was brought about by Senator Clinton's Nevada attorney. Perhaps you should call the authors of this article and tell them what you know. Or is this your representation of the politics as usual candidate - Sen. PRESENT Obama?
Katy:
Read the R-J story today -- the woman who invented the rallying cry, "Si Se Puede," for California's union farmworkers in the 1970s, has just endorsed Clinton.
Yes Katy, vote for the person with the best resume. With that in mind, perhaps we can compare my qualifications to those of Barrack?
Let me see:
* Barrack was against the war before he was for it.
* I have always been against it.
* Barrack is a lawyer.
* I am not.
* Barrack has international experience, he was in grade school in Indonesia for four years.
* I worked in a research center in Europe for four years.
* Barrack did drugs when he was younger(cocaine I think)
* I may have smoked grass when I was a young man.
* Barrack was never in the military but he served in the Illinois Senate where he voted PRESENT 130 times rather than vote for his principles.
* I served four years in the military during the Viet Nam war.
Okay, I think it is balanced and perhaps settled. I have more qualifications than Barrack but I am not as qualified as Hillary to be President. So, if you are not going to vote for Hillary, perhaps you should vote for me.
Silly me. Trying to get white, 20 something, working class graduates of Green Valley High School and Foothill High School to attend a Democratic Party caucus.
Most of them work on Saturday, either at the Sunset Galleria, nearby stores, or at the many telephone call centers in Henderson and Paradise Valley. They're struggling to pay the rent, and cannot afford to take time off from work to attend a caucus.
Frankly, I'm pissed as hell that there are no "at large" caucus sites in Henderson, to allow these young native Nevadans' voices to be heard.
These "at large caucus sites" on the Strip inherently violate the Equal Protection Clause in the Nevada Constitution and the U. S. Constitution. But then, again why should I expect the egomaniacal jerks who arranged for them to be created to care about civil rights for people other than their own narrow constituency?
I wish Nevada would pass an employer sanction law, like Arizona's, taking away the business licenses of employers (like the casinos) who do not bother to check to see if their employees' documents are counterfeit. Of course, that would be too much to ask. The Culinary Union's 60,000 member ranks might lose a few members.
Frankly, there's no one in the Nevada Democratic Party who gives a rat's patootie about the white working class students who graduate from our local high schools. It's no wonder they do not vote, or vote Republican.
To Rory Reid, Dina Titus and Shelley Berkley: I do not like your candidate and will not caucus for her. She's a flip flopping, manipulating blow hard.
To D. Taylor and P. Weiss, and the Unite Here/Culinary executive committee: I do not like your candidate either. He's a naive, inexperienced, egomaniacal blow hard. And, by the way, he was never a law professor. Just a "law lecturer"...someone who failed at the actual practice of law, who was employed at the lowest level NON TENURE TRACK at University of Chicago Law School.
The most qualified candidates are out of the competition. Just the fast food junk is left.
well as it is now clear you are a Hillary troll Darryl
Time to say goodbye -- hope you are not draft age --
Ever been to Iraq? Iran?
Wish you well as John McCain will likely be President if Hillary is the democratic candidate
The only people afraid of change and rooted in the past --
The good people of NEVADA - hopefully -- are more open minded
(spell check -
D= dumb/A=arrogant/R=Rude/R=Rooted in the past/Y=yuk/L=Las Vegas Troll---)
time to move on
CynicalObserver, have you told the health department about the rat patootie?
The saying was not created by the woman who endorsed CLinton!
It was coined by Cesar Chavez!
Re: nvblogger
Katy:
Read the R-J story today -- the woman who invented the rallying cry, "Si Se Puede," for California's union farmworkers in the 1970s, has just endorsed Clinton.
Now I know why CLinton supporters are seen as uneducated.
Lordy Lordy.
For someone to suggest the problems that Nevada faces are the result of the educators is just plain out of line. As an educator myself I am highly offended in the comment to “get back to the classroom and shut up." Excuse me, but my opinions count just as much as those culinary workers. Mind you that I have spent a lot of time and not to mention money in order to achieve my career goals. I went to college and paid for it out of my own pocket. Growing up here in Las Vegas I could have went directly into the culinary workforce and probably been way ahead financially then where I am at, but I chose not to. I went to college so that I could educate and make a difference in life of children.
Did anyone ever consider the fact that it isn't entirely our fault and that our town perpetuates a system of failure, some of these parents don't set the best example for their children. Why graduate from high school or do well in school when you can go get a job in a casino and make more money?
Special at large precincts are just another privilege that the workers in other industries and professions don't get, is that fair, NO. I have to go to my precinct to caucus just like everyone else. If I was working that day, too bad. Right? Yes!
Oh and I will be working that day, at my second job because I am not paid enough money as a teacher here in Nevada! But my opinion isn't as valued because I am not in the majority and most important workforce here in the state. So who is disenfranchised? I just have the unimportant job of educating your children and apparently I am not good at it!
Why did the Democratic Party in Nevada do this caucus stuff in the first place? Ego?
The way it is set up, leaving out the at-large precincts, we look like we only want people on the taxpayers dole to be involved and not the private employees working for the gaming, mining and other industries in this state. Shame on us! Shame on us!
NVMojo, I don't understand the whole caucus thing in the first place. Somehow, I think it is voting by peer pressure rather than voting your own principles.
And from what I can understand in the article, it seems to me this just plays into the ego of people like D. Taylor. He wants to be a power broker and this is how he does it. It makes voters part of a political surfdom. How is that the actions of a democracy?
"Why did the Democratic Party in Nevada do this caucus stuff in the first place? Ego?"
Caucuses (as opposed to primaries) are favored by strong arm party bosses who do not want the opinions of "average voters" to be expressed in the choosing of political candidates. When I say strong arm party bosses, you know who I'm talking about...the likes of Boss Tweed, Richard Daley, Tip O'Neill and perhaps even Harry Reid.
The funny thing about caucuses this year is that the Iowa Democrat party machine lost control of the Iowa Caucus. It will be interesting to see if the machine loses control of the Nevada Caucus. The comments on this site show me that Obama's operatives can shovel out as much nastiness and invective as the party regulars.
Morally, I'd like to see a final contest between Kucinich and Paul. Yes, they're both wack jobs, but at least the party machines do not control them.
It seems obvious that intimidation will be a factor in the voting process at these precincts. Voters who wish to support a candidate will have to do so in front of the watchful eyes of their union reps. These people can then either dismiss or help them with, an harassment claim, a greivance, forced overtime, unpaid labour, or dangerous working conditions etc. etc.
Many of these workers are also immigrants who are new citizens and have come from countries where voter intimidation is the norm. So, for them, it would also be expected. If they want to support Clinton or Edwards they will just not go, if they even feel they are able to do that and not place their jobs at risk.
These precinct locations place the democratic process below the desires of the culinary union. Earlier today, I thought it would be ok if the courts ordered that anyone could vote near where they worked. I have changed my mind.
For the record, though not a member of the Culinary Union, I am pro union, a cook, and my grandfather was one of the founders of the International Garment Industy Union, the parent of the Culinary Union and Unite.
People should not be caucusing where they work, unless they have secret ballots, again a central tenent of democracy. it is too open to intimidation. There is too much pressure to vote the way the boss or the union wants you to vote.
I don't think anyone can pretend these polling places would be neutral or unintimidating for those who wanted to support Clinton or Edwards.
They should be shut down.
Or perhaps some international observers from the UN could be sent in, but it still wouldn't help. Workers would still have to publicly support another candidate in front of their union reps. Just shut them down.
SLBK,
In 2000, I came back from a four year foreign service assignment and as a member of management for the company I worked for, people were surprised when I voiced my support for Gore and Lieberman. They just assumed I was a Republican.
When I continued to support the Democratic ticket, the comments made to me by my peers became harsher and harsher. It soon became the equivalent to sexual harassment, only it was political. I knew my time and position in the company was in jeopardy because of my political and liberal stand on issues; and sure enough, shortly after the election, my position was made redundant. After 16 years with the company and exceptional high marks both in the US and in Europe, I was out on my ear.
It would not have mattered that I was let go because I had a choice, either follow the conservative lead or watch my career (bonuses, raises, etc.) go down the drain.
I now have my own company so things are working out for me, but still, I know first hand how political harassment can work.
When did Culinary Union members become a country unto themselves? Why is the Democratic Party treating them with such deference? Of course all people should be free to caucus! So the party should arrange to hold caucuses in the morning and in the evening to allow for shift worker participation. ALL shift workers from all walks of life. I think the thing D. Taylor is really afraid of is the loss of control if union members caucus in their home precincts. The "legitimacy of the caucus" was foiled when it was determined that one group of people should be treated differently than everyone else.
Nevadanaut, I was stationed in Fallon Nevada when I was in the Navy. Man I loved that part of Nevada. It was more interesting and more diverse than any place I had ever been.
I remember how fiercely independent the people of Nevada were and all I can think is that this crap in Las Vegas must be driving them nuts.
I think you are right about D. Taylor. His political surfdom is in danger and about all he can do is sit and wait to see what the courts will decide.
The integrity of the party is threatened by a rogue lawsuit from a bunch of game-players, and Harry "spineless" Reid has no comment? Even a fool can smell complicity.
Now we know the true reason why Hillary Clinton dislikes caucuses - it cannot be rigged.
In the Iowa caucus, they tried to disenfranchise student voters and failed. The only election where the Clintons managed to eke out a 2-point victory and 0 delegate advantage has been questioned and will undergo a recount. In this Nevada caucus that cannot be rigged, they're trying to disenfranchise casino workers by changing the rule of the game in the middle of the game and by pitting blacks against Hispanics.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Triang...
Clinton pivoting her campaign on Latino racism:
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Clinto...
If Hillary Clinton cannot win Barack Obama without cheating, why bother to nominate her?
Can we beat them? Yes, we can! Si, se puede!
If there's any reason why the Clintons should just go away, it's the fact that they're causing supporters to sell their souls, just to win an election.
1. They think it is somehow appropriate for the Clinton folks to try to change the rules of the game - in the middle of the game. But cry foul when Republicans do the same thing in California.
2. They want election integrity, especially to make sure the GOP does not cheat in November. But if it's Hillary who won by machine ballots and Obama by hand-counted ballots, let's not recount the votes and Dennis Kucinich is crazy.
3. They villainize George Bush for the war in Iraq, but forgive Hillary for authorizing the same war with her conscience - even if she didn't even bother to apologize or shed a tear for the 4,000 dead Americans and many more dead Iraqi civilians.
4. Clinton tried to disenfranchise students in Iowa and then courted them in NH. Bill courted white votes in NH, calling Obama a 'fairy-tale'. He's now courting black votes in SC, praising Obama. As for the Nevada caucus, since there are no machines to manipulate and rig it, the only way is to disenfranchise some people.
If you stop supporting the Clintons for a moment, you'd be surprised at how better you see the world.
Yes, we can! Si, se puede!
It seems to me, as a rank outsider, that this stuff should have been discussed and settled by Nevada months ago, when the state sought to jump to the head of the line and be among the early voting states. If I understand the politics of your state, this is the first time you all are caucussing instead of holding a traditional primary.
I think this suit is frivolous. Since the at-large precincts benefit both union and non-union workers who work either on or in the vicinity of the Strip, one might have a difficult time demonstrating how people are being "disenfranchised" when the whole purpose seems to be providing a convenient location for them to perform their civic duty.
The Nevada NEA has a problem here, because their workers -- teachers -- don't teach on Saturdays. That is when the caucus is being held.
If I understand the provisions being made for voters, observant Jewish voters will find caucus locations where they can walk and precinct workers who will handle filling out forms and other tasks which might be considered work to Orthodox voters.
From the outside, this all looks like sour grapes coming from persons closely connected to the Clinton campaign. The Culinary Workers did not endorse Clinton, but Obama instead. SEIU Nevada endorsed Obama, but SEIU California endorsed Edwards. The Nevada endorsement prevents the California workers from canvassing for Edwards in Nevada. It seems that the rules were fine and dandy when Clinton was "inevitable" but now that that ship has sailed, the Clinton team is trying to change the rules at the last minute.
Clearly, that small amount of acreage along the strip is packed with potential voters who toil at "blue collar jobs." It is filled with target demographics: minorities, women, men, young, older, families, singles, immigrant, educated (or working towards it), union, non-union, comfortable middle-class, struggling middle and lower class.
Workers (and everyone else) in the rest of Las Vegas and Nevada who are available to caucus should do so on Saturday.
I'll ask you to Stand up for Change You Can Believe In. To Stand Up for Barack Obama. To believe in the power of people working together. To believe that when the powers that be say "no you can't" the resounding answer is: YES, WE CAN! SI, SE PUEDE!
Darryl, when you say "Don't drink the Obama Kool Aid" you've captured in a sentence what I've been seeing on TV. All these morons with an IQ of 100 or less absolutely dazzled by the rhetoric and the showmanship.
The amazing or scary thing is to talk to hard core Bush Republicans. Many of them almost apologetically tell me they really like Obama and would vote for him.
God help us. Another Jimmy Carter.
hope and a couple of others, you all are amazing. What in the world do you think Sen. Clinton did to make this happen?
is there anything you won't accuse her of?
By the way, do you know she also started World War II. Spread that around, it's as ridiculous as the other nonsense you accuse her of.
CynicalObserver, I am starting to think that Si, Se Puede was a mistranslation. The original Obama mantra was "Yes, WE Scam!" Do you think someone got confused?
Darryl, I think Obama's campaign employs just as many slick, calculating, manipulative, soul-less political operatives as Clinton's campaign is accused of employing. I don't think someone got confused. Each side is trying to scam the voters.
That's why your comment about voters "Drinking the Obama Kool Aide" is so insightful. It's scary to watch them. At least with Hillary, they treat her like a human, not a messiah.
It's amazing what a little pro-Clinton echo chamber seems to have gotten going here. Obama would not have sued if Clinton got the union endorsement. Show me one time in this campaign where he has not played fair. Now it's down to people like "Darryl" lying about his record on Iraq and the state senate and engaging in ad hominem attacks. Come on people, you're better than to go for Clinton's Rovian tactics.
Nissl,
I didn't lie about his record. He is a man whose actions (when there are some) contradict his words (of which there are far too many).
He voted PRESENT 130 times in our state senate. He missed 160 out of 260 votes in the US Senate. He said he was against the war, before he said he probably would have voted for it, before he said he was just lying to the American people so as to not cause embarassment for Kerry and Edwards. And I nailed his resume. So, tell me where I lied. Pointing out the facts is not telling lies just because you do not like the facts.
Whomever these people are whom are trying to say that the law suit is justified.. doesn't understand how the caucus system works. There will be no unfair advantage, end of story.
I'm sure the case will be tossed. And it should be.
I am also surprised by the number of people whom seem to be supporting this lawsuit in the comments area here. It is almost as if someone wants to give the appearance of public agreement with this process.
Now isn't that interesting? I also note.. it seems as if Hillary, knowing her campaign is seriously on the rocks on Nevada, is trying to create as much confusion there as possible.
I think it is clear that Obama is the candidate of integrity and action, and will not only keep his promises, but will not turn his back. He is showing that now, since he has refused to stoop to the Clinton's level, and you can be sure he will carry that through to the Oval Office.
Obama 08!
PS: To the folks who think Hillary has more experience.. Sleeping with the President doesn't qualify you for any jobs. Hillary should be ashamed for seeking office through the political influence of her HUSBAND'S accomplishments, when so many hard working women have gotten there through their own sweat.
"OBAMA PORTRAIT MUSIC VIDEO" on Youtube - Don't Miss It!
For those of you who still have not heard:
There is a WONDERFUL and INSPIRING music video on Youtube.com entitled "Obama Portrait Music Video by Bjarne O."
You can use the free downloaded high-quality stereo version from the composer's website in DVD form to show at house parties and fundraisers. Even people who knew nothing at all about Obama have been moved: either a thrilling introduction, or further inspiration for those of us who already know and fight for Obama.
The music soundtrack, which incorporates excerpts from the famous 2004 speech, can also be downloaded separately in high-quality.
It is an uplifting and informative campaign tool - so please, SPREAD THE WORD!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mCPwbozpIzM
YES WE CAN
Anne
Knome, have you considered laying off the drugs at least two before you add comments here?
By the way, your boy, BO, is not doing so well. He seems to be falling in popularity now because his true colors are coming through and people are learning that what they liked was a concept and that BO does not measure up to the hype he tried to create.
Nevada Election Suit – What Would Dr. King Say?
Senator Clinton has recently spoken about LBJ's role in signing the Civil Rights Act, while belatedly acknowledging the importance of Dr. King's role. One wonders what Dr. King would think of Clinton's surrogates, the Nevada State Education Association in their law suit which aims to disenfranchise the votes of casino workers by denying them access to caucuses at their work place. Many casino workers are women as well as men, and low-income Hispanic or African American, as well as white, all represent the rainbow of diversity that is our country!
Is this law suit not another effort for political advantage and expediency to triumph over principle? When State Democratic officials developed the process to include the casino precincts last spring, to allow for the greatest possible participation in Nevada’s caucus, no such controversy arose. It is only now that the Culinary Workers’ Union and the Nevada chapter of the Service Employees International Union have endorsed Senator Obama that the teachers union, which includes leaders who support Clinton, has decided to oppose having caucuses at the casinos. Clinton spokesman Phil Singer has declined to take a position, beyond leaving it to the court to decide. However, D. Taylor, who is the secretary treasurer of Culinary Local 226, has called upon the Clinton campaign to renounce it. Anything less is to be complicit in this travesty of Democratic process.
Pat_4_Change,
Dr. King would vote for Senator Clinton because he could spot a lightweight any day. In the Black community there is a saying, "show outs don't hold out!" Obama is a show out and has no staying power.
Funny isn't it that even the would be apprenctice president joined his minions in trying to make it sound as though Senator Clinton was somehow trying to reduce King's accomplishments. And yet no one has disagreed with what she said - not one damn person. It took an experienced politician to make Dr. King's dreams come true. I believe Dr. King would be ashamed of Obama (and Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson).
Want and wish without action is nothing, just hot air, just a lot of words. And that is what Senator Clinton said. She made it clear that BO had very few accomplishments to show for all of his time in politics, was on the stage with her and the other candidates not for what he had done, but for one speech (a lot of words that had no impact at all on the election).
When he compared himself to President Kennedy and Dr. King, she made it clear he also did not have a right to put himself on that stage either. Both of these men had years of experience, both had built bridges through their experiences, and both had a history of accomplishments. She made it clear that words without action are hollow. For me, that pretty much sums up Obama's soul - hollow.
To Darryl(not your brother Darryl) and CynicalO: would you guys please just go get a room and stop your little thingy here in front of the rest of us. Really. The teacher's union have no standing to bring this lawsuit as, not working next Saturday, will suffer no injury from the at-large precincts. The caucus system is a product of your state party, which accepted imput from all parties and formulated the system now at issue. If the claimants actually intended anything other than disruption of the caucus, they would have brought this suit in a timely fashion, to wit, within enough time to apply whatever changes may be necessary, assuming some validity in their argument. The arguments presented did not arise recently, they existed at the moment the caucus system was decided upon. The delay in bringing this suit evinces the ultimate intentions of the claimants: disruption rather than correction or constitutionality. Unfortunately, by not intervening on behalf of his own state's party, Sen. Reid is showing a marked lack of leadership and, ultimately, Sen. Clinton's tacit support of this attack upon purely party decided processes will doom her chance of senate leadership after the November election. Frankly, Dick Durbin as the new Senate leadership behind President Obama has a darn nice ring to it.
To: esquared; "The teacher's union have no standing to bring this lawsuit as, not working next Saturday, will suffer no injury from the at-large precincts"
Clearly you are not a lawyer, and have not read the lawsuit. But trust me on this one; the teacher's union do have standing in the lawsuit, there are relevant issues concerning the Nevada constitution equal protection language, and if I was going to guess the result of this suit, the strip precints are history. Only timing issues and possible disrution to the proces could concivably save these precints. Keep in mind that there is no statutory regulation to these precints. The fact that the teacher's union did not object to them earlier in no wayy discualify their right to petition. Though you should know.
One assumes no one can negotiate away their constitutional rights, nor can they be out voted at an executive meeting of the Democratic Party, nor is there a statute of limitations on timing for lodging a case that claims voter's constitutional rights are being violated.
Claims that unions could have objected before, or that these applicants were at the meeting that decided to create these precincts, show little regard for the Constitution.
Talos_29,
You seem to have substantial knowledge about the laws that apply here, so please explain something for me.
What I do not understand is why any lawmaker would agree to a caucus at the work place. I cannot understand how that can even be considered constitutional.
Let's say for example, your caucus site was at your private employer, e.g., you work at a doctor's office and that is where you and your fellow employees were to caucus. What would happen to your rights? It would seem your employer would have undue influence over your voting decision. And that does not seem constituional. Or does the constitution not even apply here.
But if it does and if it is wrong for your employer to have undue influence on your freedom to cast a vote, how would caucusing(?) publicly in front of your Union leadership be any different? In unskilled professions, union leaders have the same (if not more) influence over a member's career as do private employers.
I think it is fair to see where failure by a union member to vote for the candidate supported by his or her union, could cause that union member significant problems. How the hell can this be a reasonable practice in a democracy?
Darryl said-Dr. King would vote for Senator Clinton because he could spot a lightweight any day. In the Black community there is a saying, "show outs don't hold out!" Obama is a show out and has no staying power.
***********************************************
Darryl,There is NO way that he would support Hillary,knowing that her husband,Bill Clinton, did the following things:
(1)Jennifer Flowers was his mistress
2)Paula Jones-He sexually harassed her.She sued him,but he SETTLED out of court.
3)Monica Lewisy-She was a naive young woman.He had her do all kinds of degrading things to satisfy his sexual needs,including using a cigar for whatever.
He DISGRACED the whitehouse and the COUNTRY!!Now,why in the world would "ANY" WOMAN want to see him in the whitehouse,again,with the possibility of him seducing someone else's daughter
A vote for Hillary is a vote for Bill Clinton!
Thanks Rose, Bill is by far the most popular politican on the face of the planet. You have reasured many of us that our decisions to vote for Senator Hillary Clinton is the right vote.
Hussein Obama's mantra is "Yes We Scam!" You seem to understand that don't you.
Dr. King's dream was for people to be judged by the content of their character -
Obama '08
Hillary's comment had nothing to do with the color of skin, Obama sure did pull out that race card though! Obama is losing face because his motives are becoming apparent. Johnson DID sign the Civil Right Act - THAT'S the point - it may have been Dr. King's dream, but it took the President of the US to implement that dream!! Pretty simple to understand, it's OBAMA playing the race card!. The Clinton family has done more for minorities in the country than Obama can shake a stick at. Hillary has been constantly attacked far beyond ANY of these candidates and she still stands with grace.
The caucus can NOT be held in a place of employment, it's a PUBLIC vote! No one can expect people vote openly against their employer. Again, this is the Obama crew trying yet again to distort the real issues. We need FOOD on the table, we need Hillary Clinton. Vote for Obama and you will get a Bush clone.
Dr. King's dream was for people to be judged by the content of their character -
Hillary Clinton '08
now she is stealing Dr. King's words!
on my - the woman has no shame
as tempting as it is to make fun of ill informed people - the stakes are too high --
You have a right to support whatever candidate you want - but you don't have a right to make it up as you go along
The strip caucuses were voted on and championed by the Nevada Democratic Party (Harry and Rory Reid). These were approved last March --
The only new twist is that the Culinary Workers union did not endorse the status quo candidate Senator Clinton - and that made the status quo party leaders very angry!
This is clearly - proof positive - check this newspaper archives - why the Teachers Union brought the lawsuit -- with the very bogus flimsy excuse that if the CW can vote at work this disenfranchise their janitors if they have to work
As schools are closed Saturday and in this case Monday due to the holiday (MLK day) - the schools could easily give the janitors the two hours off on Saturday to caucus
Not only would this solve their "concern" about their janitors being able to caucus - it is more fiscally prudent that setting up last minute caucus sites foir a hand ful of people
Sorry Daraya2/Darryl -- there is no justification for this --
There may be a judge - who is beholden to the Reid's - and may try and stay this -- that may be way they are stalling to avoid a decision going to the State Supreme Court and even further if necessary
Ask yourself this - even if the janitors were not able to caucus at their work sites - is it in the best interest of voters to disenfranchise the strip workers?
Oh and the attorney for the plantiffs have all endorsed Senator Clinton --
and oh yes the heads of the teachers union who are the plantiffs have all endorsed Senator Clinton --
and one more thing Rory Reid appears to have been aware of all this and he is the State Chair of the Clinton campaign --
But then again as Senator Clinton said on MTP yesterday - see wasnot aware her husband was pardoning her brother before he left office -- and she was not aware her husband was pardoning Marc Rich (whose wise Denise Rich gave $100,000 to her campaign)--
so as Senator Clinton made those statements - it is possible she knew/knows nothing of this attempt by her state chair and supporters to disenfranchise a voting block of union members who did not endorse her
You may be right - we need food on the table (huh???)
I don't understand why anybody would want to prevent hotel workers from voting.
This attempt will fail. SI SE PUEDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OBAMA'S BAD JUDGEMENT
As if they have lost touch with reality, as if they are stuck in the last century, Hussein and Michelle Obama, along with all their minions decided to make this a referendum on race. They seem to think the majority of Americans - a majority that is not descended from Africa - is still swayed by liberal guilt. Sorry, that old "if the glove don't fit, you must acquit" mantra no longer works. We, as a larger group of people, are now deaf to that type of thing.
Michelle Obama was in and about the African American community trying to convice African Americans that they had to vote for Hussein because of the color of his skin. That in and of itself is racism, and she should be forced to apologize for sanctioning racism. If she isn't willing to do that, then they have no reason to start the aligator tears when some European Americans or South American Americans (see the absurdity of African American) begin their message that no one should vote for Hussein because of the color of his skin.
Oprah supported him even before she had any idea as to his character or the values he holds in his heart and she did so because of the color of his skin. She should apologize for sanctioning racism and she and all of her programs should be forced off television and radio (just like Imus) until she makes ammends and apologizes to America.
Hussein knew he was parsing Senator Clinton's words about JFK and Martin Luther King and he knew she was correct when she said it took LBJ to make MLK's dreams become a reality. He knows, as does anyone who has studied that era, that it was LBJ's decision to support the Civil Rights Ammendment that split the Democrats and caused a large block of white democrats to go to the Republican party. But obviously facts and history mean nothing if your goal is to re-write history.
But let's face it. Because he has no experience, because he cannot point to any actions he might have taken to further our country socially or economically, he has no choice but to play the race card. That is what his campaign has become, that same tired old crap from the 70's 80's and 90's. Not any more - we don't care - we don't hear it - we think it is a arguement that is used in lieu of having a record to run on.
Yes, I am afraid the BO campaign is now and has always been about race. He is trying to use race and liberal guilt to sway voters. Trust me, the more he does that, the more we will see the Bradley Effect increase significantly in states where there are primaries and the concept of one man, one vote actually means something.
Michelle Robinson Obama from a poor south side family (which if Darryl is fromIllinois he should know) by the sacrifice of her family and her brains and grit attended Princeton and then Harvard Law School
Her brother Glen Robinson also attended Princeton, became a very successful wall street broker and retired at 40 to teack basketball at Brown University
These people are COMPLETELY out of your league Darryl-- they rose up through determination and hard work -- they came from nothing
The journey of the Robinson's and Barack Obama is an inspiration for all people at the bottom of the social ladder and shows the American Dream is still alive and well --
Despite your and your candidates best efforts to pull the ladder up behind them --
Obama '08
I'm sure that Mr. Obama and Michelle Obama are fine people. That isn't enough to vote for him to be President of the United States, nor is the colour of his skin. He simply isn't experienced enough. He wouldn't be able to pass the Civil Rights Act if he were president, because he doesn't have enough experince or relationships in Washington. LBJ had to call in all his chips and even threaten senators to get the Civil Rights Bill passed, losing a good number of Democrats in the process forever. That's what Hillary was talking about, not race. Experience!
Bills in Washington arent passed with pretty speeches. She is right.
Hillary is very very good at working with Republicans, probably the best. For all his talk about being able to reach across partisan lines, it is actually Hillary who has done this consistently. She was a Republican. Her father, whom she loved dearly, was a Republican till the day he died. She knows exactly how to appeal to them and work with them. Obama does not.
Why would the US elect the most inexperienced President in history, someone who has a one page resume at this time of crisis? The nation is at war. The economy is in serious long term jeopardy. The planet's climate is on the brink. Millions of American have no health care.
He is just not an appropriate choice at this time. His candidacy is political theatre with no substance. Who will really be in charge when he is president? Who will really be making decisions? Not him. He doesn't have the experienice or influence or history or relationships in Washington to do so.
All the Obama supporters can say that relationships in washington are a bad thing. They are wrong. His presidency would be a rudderless ship and ultimately the "advisors", whomever they may be, would have more influence than they should on any president.
Obama, another crooked politician to use the union intimidation and rigging tactic.
So much for change.
Slbk,
Your post was precise and accurate, and it expresses the sentiment most of us would like to express; but somehow we get caught up in this nonsense.
Many moderates and conservatives would like to see Colin Powell on the ticket, and many people on the conservative side of the Republican party would like to see Condalisa (sp?) Rice on the ticket. From the perspective of most white people, this means their resistance to Obama is not about race. It is about him not having the necessary skill set at this time. In fact, most of us think either Powell or Rice would be more qualified than Obama.
Assuming Hillary would win the election, what I really would like to see is for Hillary to place Barack on her cabinet and essentially let him learn from watching. This would allow him to build his resume and would give him four years of OJT with the master of politics (Bill Clinton) as his un-official mentor.
Damn, if only......
No vote para Obama. El no tiene experiencia. El es un hombre malo malo.
VIVA HILLARY!!!!!!!!!
Darryl,
You write:"From the perspective of most white people"
Where are your sources? How you did get " the perspective of most white people" ?
Just because you think so it doesn,t become "the perspective of most white people"!
Of course it does. I am a communication expert and it is my job to know these types of things, i.e.,psychographics.
Oh, and for your un-educated and untrained mind - psychographics is not another word for pornography. That would be sickographics.
Wow, Michael, you've fooled all of us! Damn, how could we be so gullable? What's next - Hide and Seek?
Isn't there a kid show on Fox for you to watch?
Darryl,
What kind of BS is that with "I am a communication expert and it is my job to know these types of things, i.e.,psychographics." ?
Psychographics - it's a polysyllable word. You're an Obama supporter - big words are like pretty lights to you aren't they?
If you want to know more about psychographics, let me know. I was afraid you might get confused and pronounce it as sickographics which is why I was so quick to help you out earlier.
Sickographics is what some weird people like to look at on the internet.
As state Democrats prepare to hold their Saturday caucuses, cynical Republicans might well encourage them to choose Sen. Hillary Clinton, figuring her high "negatives" -- the unusual number of Americans who tell pollsters they'd never vote for her under any circumstances -- would virtually guarantee a GOP victory in the fall.
That's why it's a good thing for Democrats that freshman Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has managed to challenge the perception of Sen. Clinton's "inevitability."
The Clinton campaign cites Sen. Clinton's "experience." In fact, she's a one-term-plus-a-year senator whose lackluster legislative record rivals Sen. Obama's. Other than that, the "experience" in question must surely refer to her presence as a witness and enabler during her husband's presidential terms.
Suffice it to say there are dozens of issues that Americans happily dismissed as "water under the bridge" as the Clinton era came to a close, but which would quickly ensnare Sen. Clinton and her party in a presidential race that would soon look like a struggle to escape the La Brea tar pits.
For starters, imagine Sen. Clinton and "co-president" Bill Clinton invited onto a "This is Your Life" talk show where they're joined by Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky……
As Nevada Democrats head to their caucuses Saturday, they might ask themselves whether they really want to spend two months later this year watching a re-run of the horror movie "It Came From Little Rock," with the sound turned up much too loud -- or if they'd rather make it a real contest this fall.
If they prefer the latter, they're better off backing Barack Obama on Saturday.
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/13832767.htm...
Senator Mike Gravel on Barrack Obama
Reporter: What about Obama and his change message and rhetoric:
Mike Gravel: "Foolish, and dangerous. Because he doesn't even recognize that he can't deliver. thats dangerous. I would rather Hillary, at least she knows what she's talking about, he doesn't. Edwards probably knows better what he's talking about than Obama. Obama of the 3 is the most dangerous...he raises greater expectation of youth and can't deliver and the worst thing you can do is raise expectations they don't happen, you create a whole 'nother generation of cynics. And the youth that line up and haven't reasoned out what he's saying. Listen to the words, make up a speech and say change 10x, What specifically are you gonna change? i don't hear it. He doesn't say anything ... he's like an actor on a stage, he gives you a scene and you read into it, that's what he's doing, that's terrible. What you read into it isn't going to happen because he's gonna have the reality; the simplest one of all We have a 50 trillion dollar fiscal gap, there's no money to DO anything..."
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S UNION ENDORSEMENT IS HARASSING VOTERS INTO VOTING FOR HIM! SPREAD IT AROUND!
Culinary Union Intimidating Members to Vote for Obama
Reported from Las Vegas, Nevada
There's nothing dainty about Las Vegas but things are getting rough.
Intimidation. Pledges demanded. People to vote for Obama or stay away from the caucus.
Call this union vs. the casino workers.
I just did an interview with a Culinary union member who was intimidated while eating lunch in the cafeteria at work. She didn't want to give her name, but she wanted to tell her story. The connection is rough, but her story tells the tale. It's below in a podcast:
Culinary Union pressures members to vote for Obama.
Pamela over at Democratic Daily posted on a tip she received about the intimidation.
Jon Ralston talked about it this morning on MSNBC.
I just got off the phone with a unimpeachable source that there has been more than one confrontation between union reps and members.
This is not an indictment against unions, especially considering I joined my first union when I was in my teens, totally four eventually. Unions are the backbone of the middle class. But in every good group there lies opportunistic cretins. Obama's supporters are obviously applying Chicago style politics in Sin City and they've got three days to get the job done.
Meanwhile, you've got big shots like John Kerry talking about "let the people vote" doing so within a stacked system titled towards the Culinary union, with many of their members who'd much rather vote for someone other than Obama being intimidated and forced to sign pledge cards. Some will fight back, but most will not. From what I'm hearing, this is getting ugly. It's the opposite side, with the story actually being "make the people vote for me."
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view...
Si se puede!
These at-large causes are not being conducted fairly.
Yes only Those who are working on the strip can go. But the union is forcing its members to fill out an OBAMA pledge card in order for the Union to ask your employer to give you time off to caucus. Normally it would be impossible to get 2 hours off of work which is why I never thought it was a good idea to begin with, unless you are a worker who is either starting or ending a shift.
They are telling members if they dont caucus for Obama they cannot attend the caucus. And that they MUST fill out a pledge card for "OBAMA".
Thats More then wrong Its Illegal. And this is placing Nevada in a very ugly light. And if any investigation proved voter intimidation(And if it happenbs it will be proven) that is a federal offense. and the entire Caucus can be recalled, and be nulled and our delegates from these sites yanked. Not good for the Winner, or any of the candidates.
The Media will be coming down on this hard very soon as culinary members are coming forward with horror stories about intimidation.
If they can figure out a fair process then fine, but otherwise scrap it.
Also they same delegate quota should count for all caucus locations. The Union sites should not be entitled to more delegates "Just because"
Nevada as a whole is going to suffer over this, as well as Obama, because the Union was not bright enough to hold off endorsement till after the Caucus,
Had they done so, and then held an unbiased
At-large Caucus none of this would be happening.
annavilla
How wrong can you be?
If these at large proceedings were handled in a fair manner, without intimidation to the members I personally would LOVE it. I work at Bally's/Paris in the casino. and 9 out of 10 culinary workers are supporting Hillary. Handled fairly It would work to her advantage in a huge way. HOWEVER.... Ive seen and heard the lies and intimidation taking place. Talk about disinfranchise... The Union is strong arming the workers into standing for Obama. and even telling them they cannot caucus if they dont.
If Obama wins on the up and up Im not concerned, this is only 1 state and I still believe Hillary will prevail,However thats not the case.
The Union never polled or asked its members, and the majority are Hispanic/Asian and backing Hillary. But they are being told they cant.
That against the law.
This whole thing will be a disaster.
If its done fair Id be thrilled because I KNOW Hillary would win, But its not.
Allready peoople have been told they cant caucus because they support Hillary. If they pledge Obama the Union is working to get them time off to stand for Obama.
I know what Im talking about because I live here and work in a casino and have talked to these people, and they are very upset. They are being threatened, intimidated, lied to, and coerced. Casino workers and other departments wont even facter in because they will never be allowed to leave for up to 2 hours
I promise you right now this is going to come back and bite Obama in the Butt.. Big Time
Everybody loses here
People
These ONSITE Hotel/Casino Caucases will NOT enable casino workers to caucus.
Casino workers are permitted a 20-30 minute break. THATS IT... Our Bosses dont give a hoot about our wishes when it comes to voting. The ONLY thing they are concerned about is keeping the tables in action.That how Casino's run.
Believe me, I asled if they were going to acomodate us and the answer was a resounding "NO"
(which is why I took the day off)
These sites are about accomodating The Union members
Bus boys/girls
servers (food/cocktail)
Bartenders
housekeepers
etc.....
But even these members normally get 30min or 1 hour breaks at the most.
From what I gather though IF a member promises to pledge and caucus for Obama, the Union talks to their boss to help ensure they get time off to caucus.
But
If they support Hillary, or Edwards , Or any other candidate.. They are told they cannot attend the caucus, and told not to show up.. Period ! And they are distributing misleading, and threatening propoganda flyers.
The Union is making sure that ONLY Obama supporters are getting the time off work accomidations.
If this is not GROSS disenfranchisement I dont know what is. What I am positive about though is that its getting very very very ugly.
I've been a lifelong Democrat and would have never considered voting Republican. I was also a long time Clinton supporter until they both came out so strongly for the invasion of Iraq.
Now I am just disgusted with the gutter the Clintons have sunk to and I join the 50% of Americans who would vote for a dead dog before I'd vote Clinton again.
Don't fall for this pitting union against union. The teachers are off work Saturday and can vote- the Strip workers can't take off to go vote.
TomDC,
You seem to think stealing votes is acceptable. We, the members of the Democratic Party, do not think this type of behavior is acceptable so we would like to invite you to leave our party and join the republicans. Their pit needs another viper.
Votar por Hillary!! I am a hispanic male and I appreciate Hillary. I got to speak with her and I appreciate her genuine concern for my race and America. I am a memeber of the Culinary Workers Union and I will cast my vote for Hillary based on my individual experience talking with her. She is the candidate with experience to change America and I hope others in my union will look past the union leaders and decide on their own. Hillary will make a positive change for this country!
As I watch Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail, I find them increasingly a study in contrasts, their differences evident not only in the things they say but in the fundamental nature of their respective campaigns. Hillary Clinton wants to be America's manager-in-chief, and her campaign shows it. Clinton '08 is a strictly managed affair from the top down, and that is how decisions are made: from the top down. Among Clinton's high profile backers is Martha Stewart, and Clinton '08 has all the earmarks of a Martha Stewart campaign, a campaign with not so much as a throw pillow out of place. In fact I should imagine that if one were to compare one of Clinton's speeches to a Martha Stewart address before a gathering of potential investors, one would find very little difference. Barack Obama, in contrast, wishes to lead by inspiring; and he has already demonstrated the ability to inspire many thousands across the United States and indeed around the world. If Hillary Clinton represents the market-model, managerial mentality of the 1990s, Obama seems to recall the political and social leaders of the 1960s, as many have observed - leaders who believed likewise that leadership was about more than just managing bureaucracy. None of America's greatest presidents are considered great because of their bureaucratic management skills. Abraham Lincoln's authorship of the Emancipation Proclamation was not an act of effective bureaucratic management, nor was JFK's dream to put a human on the moon by the end of his decade. If Barack Obama were not in possession of the basic skills required for the job he seeks, he would not have come as far as he has. Obama possesses far more, however, than the ability merely to be our chief pencil pusher.
IF YOU WANT TO CONTACT THE HEAD OF THE TEACHERS UNION AND GIVE HER A PIECE OF YOUR MIND EMAIL HER HERE Lynn.Warne@nsea-nv.org
I asked aren't teachers off on Saturday's, and she said it's regarding her custodians. Such B.S. Do you honestly think this lawsuit would of been filed if Hillary was endorsed. I don't think so!!
LANI1122,
I ASKED THAT YOUR POST BE TAKEN DOWN BECAUSE I AM NOT SURE YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO BE POSTING SOMEONE'S EMAIL ADDRESS ON A SITE LIKE THIS WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION.
YOU MAY BE RISKING A LAWSUIT SINCE THE NSEA DID NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS FORUM.
IT IS NOTHING PERSONAL. PERHAPS YOU SHOULD CHANGE IT FROM HER PERSONAL EMAIL ADDRESS TO THEIR WEBSITE WHICH IS PUBLIC.
To the last person, are you dumb? It's on that main site (public) for everyone to see! Duh!
http://www.nsea-nv.org/contact.htm
SCAMOBAMA'S PLAN TO JUMP START THE ECONOMY.
First you make sure the car is in neutral,
Then you make sure the bumpers line up,
Then you get your daddy to drive the car and push the other car.
Then, then you say some magic words because words are more important than actions.
Katy,
Those $250 give aways are pretty popular on Chicago's south side aren't they. Wow. What vision the man has. (did he get this keen idea from Rev. Al or Jesse?)
Please go caucus for Obama and tell everyone about Clintons and their record.
Anyone who wants to see the true Hillary, ask her or her supporters why she waffled after initially supporting NY GOV. Spitzer's plan to grant Drivers Licenses to illegal aliens in NY State; remember that terrible debate answer and then the aftermath in which she received a lot of negative airplay. The former President Bill Clinton asked the Governor to pull his plan so Hillary would not have to answer any more questions about it to get her off the hook. Look it up. That is the big supporter of Latinos.
Please call out Obama on his comments in the debate and check with any relatives or anyone else you know in Chicago to see if he has that kind of record there of saying anything to win the moment and move on with your vote to the next audience.
The Clintons record in the White House is they never stayed around to fight for us. They caved in on Affirmative Action and Welfare Reform, and most importantly, their Crime Bill that they brag put so many more officers on the street is also singularly responsible for a generation of historically high incarceration rates for black and brown people in this country. We also have the Clinton years to thank for the mandatory sentencing guidelines, eliminating the discretion of judges, and the disparity in sentencing between crack/cocaine sentences.
We Democrats mobilized to rally around them in 1998 and defend them from attacks, and that was entirely appropriate then. But they are the attackers now, attacking our Union and Obama just to make some kind of triumphant return to the White House; and we have to let them know that we love them but we need bolder, bigger cajones this time around. We need a homerun to sweep in majorities in both Houses of Congress with a message of hope and unity; and then we can claim a mandate to enact sweeping changes in legislation.
The truth that everyone reading this knows in his/her heart is that:
1. Any of our three Democratic candidates CAN win in November.
2. Only one could just as easily lose. (HRC is the only candidate with higher negative ratings than favorable one among all DEM and REP candidates)
3. And only one could win HUGE. (Obama has the biggest margin between favorable and negative ratings among all DEM and REP candidates)
We gotta go for it! This is why the female Senator McCaskill from MO and Gov. Napolitano from AZ along with Native American Sen. Nelson of Nebraska all endorsed Obama last week. No one wants the name Clinton on top of the ballot in their state, except the Republicans.
So please don't stay home. Everyone must go out Saturday and share your views with your neighbors. Go For It. And Ba-Rock the Vote!!!
FJR,
It is almost humourous to read posts such as yours where selective memory is at play.
Sen. Clinton never said she was for granting licenses for illegal immigrants. She said she understood why Gov. Spitzer was considering them: it was because the federal government had done such a poor job of protecting our borders and that failure was costing the individual states billions of dollars every year. Every state is having to find its own way of coping with that failure.
But let's consider Senator Clinton's statement during the debate where someone put words in her mouth with SCAMOBAMA'S stand on the Iraq war
- where he was against it,
- - before he was for it
- - - before he was against it!
SCAMOBAMA must have had Kerry for an advisor.
Regarding SCAMOBAMA's tendency to say anything to win the moment:
>>> The truth is this man of words and no action lets his wife RACEORAMA SCAMOBAMA do his dirty work for him, where she went around the country tell African Americans they have to vote for her husband BECAUSE HE IS BLACK! YEAH AINT THAT THE SOUL OF A VISIONARY AND A UNITER. Well, he used her and every other race-motivated shakedown artist on Chicago's south side as a means to an end.
Trust me, he is not liked outside the collar counties of Chicago for a number of reasons, the largest of which is he does not back up any of his SCAMORAMA words with action.
The only thing SCAMOBAMA might win is the publishers clearing house sweepstake
- which by the way, is his economic plan to start the country's economy: have the United States government enter the Publishers' Clearing House sweepstakes and HOPE we win - another of SCAMOBAMA'S magic words.