Hi JR,

Like the Hatfield and McCoy's, Protestants and Catholics of Northern Ireland, and the Jews and Moslems of the Middle East, we will never really know who is responsible for igniting a race, gender and generation war in the Democratic Party. However, what we do know is that the hate and vitriol between the candidates and their supporters is quickly spiraling out of control. I fear we are not at the end of such divisiveness but only the beginning, and it bodes ill for the chances for the Democratic Party in November regardless of the nominee.

While I'm sure the Republicans look upon a fractured Democratic Party with some glee, they are plagued by their own divisive issues based on age,religion, and an undercurrent of national origin, race, and gender driven hate.

Sadly, at a time when we should be celebrating the most diverse presidential campaign in history, instead we are seeing both parties and our nation becoming more divided by factions then ever before in modern times. If you recall your Federalist Papers (9 and 10 in particular), such factionalisim was among their greatest concerns, and rightly so.

Voters are increasingly casting their ballots not on what candidates stand for, what they have done, and what they realistically can do, but rather on their race, their gender, their religion, their generation, and their national origin. While the process may have begun in other states, the results of the Nevada caucus - both democratic and republican, has put its stamp of approval on such politics.

We are witnessing the beginning of a meltdown in American Politics and with it perhaps the beginning of a meltdown in America.

How ironic that at a time when all of the candidates promise to bring us together and change Washington, they ALL share so much responsibility for driving us apart and proving that the only change we can expect is more of the same.

zb

I can not speak of other locations but in Boulder City every candidate and the rights of every voter was treated with utmost respect and fairness. I consider his remarks a personal insult to me and all the other participants in the process who are my neighbors and who I know conducted themselves with absolute integrity.

I am personally outraged by the suggestions of Mr. Plouffee that any of us has done anything in violation of the rules of caucus or that was not fair and just. Indeed as a close observer and participant in the Nevada Caucus process I find that it has been the Obama campaign that is constantly inciting racial divisiveness that undermines the prospects for victory by the Democrats in November against the republicans, regardless of who our candidate is.

One only need read the vitriol of on line posts directed by Obama supports against Hillary to see who is really conducting a campaign of false attacks and hate. Is this the politics of change that is being promised by the Obama Campaign? Is this the politics of uniting us as a nation when you are directing so much hatred against someone who has done so much on behalf of the democratic principles we all hold sacred?

For those who take the time to understand the at-large issue they will see that it was manifestly unfair and un democratic to give a special privilege to one group of voters compared to all other voters as was done on behalf of the Culinary Union. The fact that the Obama campaign and the Culinary Union turned it into a racial issue is outrageous and reprehensible. Shame on Mr. Plouffe.

zb

For those who take the time to understand the issue over the culinary union and "at large" precincts they will see that it was fundamentally unfair the way it was set up from the beginnig.

Workers at the casinos were given a privilege denied to thousands of other workers that could not attend the caucus because they had to work. In addition the votes for at large precincts carried almost 4 times the weight in delegates as all other precincts. This is manifestly unfair, un-equal, and un-democratic. The fact that it was made into a racial issue by the Obama Campaign and the Culinary union is really disgraceful,

The vitriol i see coming from the Obama supporters toward Hillary is really unjustified and disheartening. In the end it will ultimately undermined the ability to defeat the republicans. Tell me, why should Hillary supporters want to support Obama given all of the personal attacks against her. We need to rise above this for the sake of winning in November.

zb

Isn't it funny how Candidates keeps talking about change while getting support from some of the longest running members of congress.

I supported Kerry in 04 and like him, but when I heard him speak here about Obama he didn't answer the fundamental questions: Obama's campaign is all about the promise of "change" and yet he did not tell us any thing factual about what he will change, how he will change it, and why we should believe it will be anything different.

To me the whole pitch about "change" (or his slogan: "change you can believe in") is nothing more than a marketing slogan. Washington isn't changing and we all know it; republicans aren't going to suddenly agree to anything we think is important. The promise of change is like a promise of free medical insurance for everyone... and it has about as much truth to it as when GWB said he was a "uniter instead of a divider" (that lasted about a day in office). If you are going to promise change then you are obligated to say what you will do to make it happen.

I did not hear the answer from Kerry and I have yet to hear it from Obama.

The fact is there is only one kind of change in Washington: more votes than the other side.

zb

to Tomdc... I give the NDP the benefit of the doubt that months ago when the NDP came up with the "at-large" concept I doubt they had malicious intent or realized the implication.

The idea was to expand participation by Hispanic voters as part of a larger effort to organize for the presidential election. Organizing for the presidential election was the main reason for having a caucus over a primary in the first place - it brings out the more politically active. Personally, I was against the caucus from the beginning because it is more difficult to participate, the counting rules are completely unfair, and makes for even fewer voters then the already low turnout of a primary.

However, once it became recognized the manifestly unfair nature of the at-large precincts - that it would be available only to certain groups, that it was not available to everyone equally, and different counting rules - the NDP should have eliminated them. Even if they added other at-large sites there still would have been countless numbers unable to vote throughout the county and the state. Remember, this is not just here in LV and CC but throughout the state. (one possibility might have been to make all precincts "at-large" and have two shifts of voting)

The arrangement is manifestly unfair. It doesn't take a court or rocket science to recognize that. Obviously people who feel disadvantaged by it are going to oppose it and those who feel they benefit from it will want to keep and justify it. Isn't that what happens with all "jim crow" laws. Had the Culinary Union, for example endorsed HRC instead of OB we might very well have heard a different take on it from the respective parties - as in the proverbial show is on the other foot.

But the fact is it is still a violation of our basic principles and was ill conceived from the start. Once it was realized the NDP should have done the right thing and those who made this into a racial issue should be ashamed.

Given the facts, I would no more think of running a polling place under a dictator or the old south then running one here.

In the meantime, the vitriol against the candidates - of which virtually all of it is baseless and mindless - is really pretty stupid and sickening. Maybe instead of questioning the candidates motives it is time to question our own.

While it is important that the Democrats win the WhiteHouse, when it comes to local politics I don't see much difference between the parties. Its all about power and money and they all work for the same special interests.

zb