1971guy, take a look at the results today... more women are voting by sex. Does that this mean that Hillary Clinton is making the race more sexist?

Black voters are supporting Obama and not the old party elite, because they believe he is simply more relevant and more likely to bring about improvements in their lives.

Really, their support for Obama mirrors their support for Democrats in general over Republicans... They feel, quite rightly, that Obama is the real candidate of change and reform, and that Hillary Clinton's record is one of a closet Republican, more in line with her friend Joe Lieberman, who she campaigned for over the Democratic candidate.

In case anyone forgets, Obama was trailing by about 27% in Nevada just last month.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/po...

Obama may not have won the popular vote in Nevada, but he walks away competitive, with half of Nevada's delegates and the lead in overall delegates thus far. South Carolina looks to be a more likely Obama win, however.

The big issue is, will Obama be able to make greater inroads into the latino community in upcoming races... because if he can't, he will have a harder time winning.

Nobody ever said this would be easy. Hopefully, he can pick up more Edwards supporters in upcoming elections and make inroads against the Clinton's connections and party machinery.

To be fair, Edwards wasn't in office when NAFTA passed. That said, he was on record for keeping NAFTA, albeit renegotiating it somewhat, and he also voted to give China permanent favorable access to the US market, despite its horrible human rights and labor record, which is arguably an even bigger issue.

Hey Latinos.... Bill Clinton didn't want you to vote, because he thought it would hurt his wife's chances to get elected. But can you vote?!

"Si! Se puede!"

Despite what the obnoxious MSNBC pundits might say, the general public seems to think that Obama won the debate.

From http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=...

Barack Obama
75%
Hillary Clinton
20%
John Edwards
5.5%

From http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1...

Obama
49% 775 votes
Edwards
30% 474 votes
Clinton
19% 311 votes

I think a lot of the pasty white blowhard commentators are overlooking just how strong a performance Obama made in the debate, especially on issues of race. I can't help but think that his answers -- and Hillary's voter suppression efforts -- will win over many of the Hispanic and Black voters who were previously on the fence.

"Saying "EVERYONE agreed" is like a bunch of fat, white cracker Democrats in the 1960's..."

**SPITTAKE!**

So, you're arguing that allowing people to vote is the same as an organized attempt to prevent people from voting?!

You're not just cynical... you're certifiable!

The fact remains that the Teacher's Union *DID* have the opportunity to complain about the changes. If it was such a big issue, they could have mobilized their members, and got them involved in the process too. Instead, they actually played a role in creating and approving these changes... and now they don't want them, presumably because Clinton wasn't endorsed by the union.

I agree that every Nevadan should be able to vote.

That said, I don't think it's fair to attack the Culinary Union, just because they've worked hard to help their members be able to participate politically.... they're *SUPPOSED* to advocate for their member's rights, and they're not getting anything special that the Teachers Union doesn't already have, essentially.

This whole thing really shows part of the ugly nature of humanity, in that some people always view the relatively modest rights of someone else as an imposition on their own, rather than as progress towards greater rights for all. And when it comes to voting, we *ALL* should have rights. We should be glad, not resentful, that more people are able to participate in elections, and we should work towards the day when everyone who wants to vote can vote.

Even the way the Sun positioned the argument "Culinary vs. everyone else in labor spat" is obviously false, because most Nevadans -- and most unions -- support the right of the Culinary Union members to vote. The Sun seems to want to make this a confrontation, but even the teachers are against their own union on this issue.

"If the union is so concerned about their member's participation, why don't they ask the casinos to close or let them have a few hours off?"

Because, the casinos like making money, and they've sided with and contributed to Hillary Clinton's campaign, presumably because they believe that they'll make even more money later because of their support.

See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/14... for details.

If the casinos weren't biased on their decision, they might see this situation as a good PR opportunity to show Nevadans how much they care... but they already gave Hillary lots of their money and support, so you can pretty much count on them to screw over their employees and keep them working, should the courts decide not to throw out this fraudulent lawsuit.

It's nothing personal... it's just good business.

On what basis does the teachers union really have a legitimate complaint, given that caucuses have traditionally been held at schools? Don't their union employees get the advantage of having higher average caucus participation too? Hasn't that given them the very same kind of advantage for years that the casino workers are now being accused of wanting? Should they be forced to stop hosting caucuses at schools?

Let's face it... some union or another will always have an advantage in participation under the caucus system. And yet, none of these people sueing today even made a peep when the changes in caucusing were first suggested!

What we're seeing here are Clinton supporters trying to disenfranchise a ton of Nevadans, especially minorities. Really, there are so many Nevadans near the Strip, it makes sense to allow them to caucus.

This is nothing new. Hillary's campaign surpressed voters in New Hampshire too.

See http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/12/...

Democrats need to speak out against such behavior, because what Hillary's campaign is doing is starting to look like something out of Karl Rove's playbook.

I sure hope that union workers, latinos, and black voters remember that it was Hillary Clinton who did her best to surpress their votes when they vote in California, New Mexico, etc.