Obama Boosted by Nevada Ruling
EmailABC News’ Sunlen Miller, David Chalian, and Teddy Davis Report: Sen. Barack Obama’s, D-Ill., presidential campaign received good news on Thursday when a federal judge ruled that the Nevada Democratic Party can go forward with nine at-large precincts on the Vegas strip.
Supporters of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., had challenged the at-large districts in court claiming that it was unfair for shift workers on the Strip to be able to caucus at their workplaces when similar provisions have not been made in other parts of the state.
The decision is expected to help Obama in Saturday’s Nevada caucuses because the Culinary Workers — a union which has endorsed Obama — represents the casino workers.
Obama reacted to the ruling following a round table discussion in San Francisco, Calif.
"I’ll be honest with you," said Obama. "We had nothing to do with setting up these rules. We simply were planning to win under the rules that had been set up. Some of the people who set up the rules apparently didn’t think we’d be as competitive as we were and tried to change them last minute."
"But you know," he added, "I think the judge was clear that you can’t change the rules six days before the caucus and that any alteration would have disenfranchised maids, dishwashers, bellhops who work on the strip, so just in terms of politics, we are confident of our organization on the ground. But in terms of policy, I think it was the right decision to make sure that as many people in the caucuses participate as possible."
Clinton spokesman Jay Carson reacted to the ruling by noting that the former first lady’s campaign was not a party to the lawsuit. He also reaffirmed Clinton’s belief that it is unfair for shift workers on the Strip to have access to an at-large precinct while shift workers elsewhere in the state do not.
"While we were not involved in this lawsuit, and have always said that we would play by the rules that we’re given, it has always been our hope that every Nevadan should have equal access and opportunity to participate in the caucus," said a statement from Clinton spokesman Jay Carson.
"Make no mistake," he continued, "the current system that prohibits some shift workers from being able to participate, while allowing others to do so, would seem to benefit other campaigns. More importantly it is unfair. We also are concerned with recent news reports about voter intimidation tactics that would further discourage some Nevadans from participating on Saturday. Our strategy remains the same — we want as many people as possible to participate in the caucus, and we are going to reach out to as many Nevadans as possible in an effort to do as well as possible on Saturday."
According to Bill Buck, a consultant to the Nevada Democratic Party, somewhere between 4-6.5 percent of the total delegates at stake in Saturday’s caucuses will come from the at-large precincts. The Nevada Democratic Party estimates that there will be 40,000 caucus attendees statewide and that 10 percent of the attendees (4,000) will come from the at-large precincts.
Nevada Democrats estimate that there will be 50,000-100,000 shift workers on the Vegas strip during the time of the Nevada caucuses who would be eligible to participate in the at-large precincts.
The Nevada Democratic Party estimates that the nine ballrooms being used as at-large caucus sites can only hold a combined total of 20,000 people from the standpoint of fire martial caps. If turnout exceeds cap in one room, another one of the nine ballrooms will be used as a spillover room.
It is unclear at this time what will happen if all nine ballrooms exceed capacity.
CPAC: Romney Struggles to Convince Voters 
Obama Backs Off Birth Control Battle?
YAHOO!! In your face, Bill Clinton!!
Posted by: RuthieM | January 17, 2008, 3:03 pm 3:03 pm
Anyone who claims (usually it’s republicans…) that it’s more fair to NOT let lower income voters vote is WRONG. Shame on you Clinton supporters.
Posted by: Dem in Chicago | January 17, 2008, 3:06 pm 3:06 pm
There is alot going on out in Nevada with the culinary and the voters. Go to Las Vegas Sun (their newspaper) and read what is going on at some of the casino’s (noteably the Paris) regarding the culinary telling voters they have to vote for Obama or they can’t caucus.
Posted by: nbarendt | January 17, 2008, 3:17 pm 3:17 pm
YES! Score one for the people against the Clinton Slime Machine!
Posted by: Reinie | January 17, 2008, 3:52 pm 3:52 pm
There is some SERIOUS denial going on by Bill Clinton here. The Nevada caucuses were set up EXACTLY the way they are now 10 months ago!!!
But it wasn’t until the Clinton camp found out that they were not getting the endorsement from the culinary union that they SUDDENLY REALIZED that it was set up unfairly?
C’mon! Clinton: you knew it, and it was fine by you when you thought all those people, who would have easy access to the caucuses, were going to endorse you.
YOU CAN’T CHANGE THE RULES OF THE GAME WHEN YOU DON’T GET AN ENDORSEMENT!
Shame on you, Bill!
Posted by: ListenUpPeople | January 17, 2008, 3:53 pm 3:53 pm
I do think the decision was a fair decisions that the judge made. It just seemed that the rules were being changed because Obama got the endorsement, but still its anyone game out there. Obama, Hillary and Edwards are all in a dead heat and I wish them all luck. Although, I do wish Obama more luck, but I’m a democrate and I want a democrate to win this election not a republican.
Posted by: betty | January 17, 2008, 3:54 pm 3:54 pm
Hmmm, so citing concerns about ‘Democracy’, the Clinton campaign defies their party leadership to ensure Hillary is the only candidate on the ballot in MI & FL, and tries to block votes for their opponent in NV. There’s Democracy for you – Clinton style.
Posted by: John | January 17, 2008, 3:54 pm 3:54 pm
I do think the decision was a fair decisions that the judge made. It just seemed that the rules were being changed because Obama got the endorsement, but still its anyone game out there. Obama, Hillary and Edwards are all in a dead heat and I wish them all luck. Although, I do wish Obama more luck, but I’m a democrate and I want a democrate to win this election not a republican.
Posted by: betty | January 17, 2008, 3:58 pm 3:58 pm
If you ask someone a question and they begin their response to you with “I’ll be honest with you,” as Obama said to the reporter on this issue and also, strangley, to the Washington Post reporter who asked him about Rezko, close your eyes, cover your ears and brace yourself, because a whopper load of BS is going to slap you in the face.
I thought used car salesmen were the only ones still using that cheap psychological sales ploy. But I guess the line is also still in favor with con men like Obama.
Posted by: John | January 17, 2008, 3:58 pm 3:58 pm
I am a registered democrat. The more I hear Bill Clinton, the more respect I have for George Bush Sr. Sure, there is nothing wrong in Bill Clinton “loving” his wife. But the way he has conducted himself lately, is absolutely shameless. He is assuming the attack dog role of VP Chenny. Does anyone disagree ?
Posted by: al | January 17, 2008, 4:00 pm 4:00 pm
More and more, it is becoming apparent that the Clintons are raging that they may not get the coronation they planned for themselves. Bill Clinton is once again an embarrassment to the nation and the presidency. One can only imagine the train wreck he would cause if let back into the White House, even as First Laddie.
Posted by: Mark | January 17, 2008, 4:04 pm 4:04 pm
Wow, it is pretty embarassing when you come out against having working people have a chance to caucus, like the Clintons did. However, it is really embarassing when you lose in court. Hillary really better hope she does not lose the Nevada Caucus or her slide may be insurmountable. Why doesn’t anybody use inevitable to talk about Hillary anymore?
Posted by: Sean O'Brien | January 17, 2008, 4:05 pm 4:05 pm
Bill Is running for office not Hillary.
They need to call burger king if they want to have their way.
Posted by: Jim Rod | January 17, 2008, 4:08 pm 4:08 pm
So, Prince Charming has his way with the culinary union in Nevada. Since the Nation is watching his antics, he may gain there but this will be remembered. Prince Charming is all mouth and no substance, so he has to stoop to such tactics. I feel for the rest of the democratic voters who get screwed in the deal. Pretty sad, Prince Charming.
Posted by: benvictor | January 17, 2008, 4:10 pm 4:10 pm
It seems the more this camoaign goes on the more it seems that the 22nd amendment on serving only two terms is being winked at and then some by the Clintons.
Posted by: E J Gallagher | January 17, 2008, 4:12 pm 4:12 pm
The Clinton’s are so sleazy. I hope everyone understands all their back handed plays and gets out there to Caucus against them. They are just part of the same old, same old Washington. Let’s vote people!!!!
Posted by: Anna | January 17, 2008, 4:14 pm 4:14 pm
Hillary and her ‘TACTICS’ remind me of other ‘slimy’ politicians who can’t represent democracy while denying segments of the population the opportunity to vote.
There were probably people who would’nt have been able to vote without this Caucus setup.
Go Obama and Edwards. I hope there is serious BACKLASH for HER slimy, dirty, political tactics and Obama and Edwards both beat her in Nevada.
BTW, since Nevada caucuses, they don’t use voting machines that can be manipulated, right?
HILLARY, you have major problems in Nevada. What other dirty tricks are you going to use out of desperation?
Posted by: Joe | January 17, 2008, 4:15 pm 4:15 pm
It is indeed very important to the integrity of American democracy that all elections include American citizens ONLY.
The upcoming Democratic Nevada caucus will likely be the first significant “election” in which illegal immigrants dominate the outcome. The reasons are: 1. The Culinary Workers Union, by it’s own admission, is largely composed of illegals. 2. This union is backing O-BOMBA and is working to get the caucuses held in casinos, where the illegals/union members work 3. Since this is a caucus, not a state or federal election, the ground-rules for participation are controlled by the Democratic Party – which so far is supporting all the Culinary Workers Union’s demands.
The outcome of the Nevada Democratic caucus will therefore be significantly affected by illegal immigrants. This is a new low in American democracy. It is yet another reason to do everything possible to ensue that ALL elections include ONLY American citizens.
Posted by: ALEX H. | January 17, 2008, 4:19 pm 4:19 pm
This article is about a court decission not to change the rules MID STREAM. There is no mention of any voter being denied the right to vote.
Posted by: angie | January 17, 2008, 4:31 pm 4:31 pm
Wow. ABC really has it in for the Clintons – more anti-Clinton media bias just like we saw in the 1990s. Shame on you, ABC!
Posted by: Alice K. | January 17, 2008, 4:33 pm 4:33 pm
I now see Miss Clinton as Bush-lite. Hopefully Obama can defeat her.
Posted by: yo-yo | January 17, 2008, 4:34 pm 4:34 pm
YES!!!! One win for the honest folks!
Posted by: Emeril Franks | January 17, 2008, 4:34 pm 4:34 pm
angie,
You are correct about the fact that voters are not being denied the ‘Right to Vote’ BUT the point is that if you make it difficult for people to vote, i.e., you force them to take a day off from work (which many low income people do not have the luxury to do) to travel to their respective districts to caucus, you are effectively denying them the ‘Ability to Vote.’
Yes, every American has the Right to Vote but depending on their circumstances may not have the Ability to Vote that day.
Posted by: Joe | January 17, 2008, 4:41 pm 4:41 pm
the rules were made in march 07 by the democratic party leaders (not obama), and since then hrc didnt complain, now obama gets the endorsement of the culinary workers (a huge endorsement) and all of a sudden there is a problem, yeah theres only a problem when the hrc camp dont have their way!
Posted by: jacobs | January 17, 2008, 4:41 pm 4:41 pm
the rules were made in march 07 by the democratic party leaders (not obama), and since then hrc didnt complain, now obama gets the endorsement of the culinary workers (a huge endorsement) and all of a sudden there is a problem, yeah theres only a problem when the hrc camp dont have their way!
Posted by: jacobs | January 17, 2008, 4:41 pm 4:41 pm
Obama wins Neveda with 60% of the votes.
What will the Clintons think of next?
Posted by: Boyddollar | January 17, 2008, 4:44 pm 4:44 pm
I am neither a Clinton supporter nor an Obama supporter (I liked Richardson until he got out), so I hope I can look at this situation objectively. And objectively, the Clintonites are very much in the wrong here. Yes, Obama benefits, but it was NOT, in fact, his doing, as so many people here are claiming. The state Democratic party created these precincts last summer, and no one on Clinton’s team objected to it when she was way ahead of the pack and many folks thought the primaries & caucuses would just be going through the motions and Obama might be, at most, an interesting and attractive “also ran”.
Secondly, Obama’s second-place finish in New Hampshire almost cost him the Culinary Workers Union’s endorsement, which had been scheduled to be announced the following day. If the union had, in fact, withdrawn its support of him after his NH results, does anyone really believe that this teachers union that filed the suit this week would still have done so? No. It has nothing to do, on their part, with fairness, and everything to do with fear.
Fairness is on the side of the casino workers, who, unlike the great majority of people in most places, have to work on Saturdays. Give BOTH Nevada parties credit for scheduling their caucuses on a weekend, so at least the people who often can’t vote because of Monday-through-Friday work schedules would have the chance to be involved in the process. But ensuring those people’s enfranchisement shouldn’t be traded for disenfranchising Saturday workers. The parties, and the judge, did exactly the right thing in ensuring that the greatest number of people possible had an opportunity to participate.
Posted by: Davy G. | January 17, 2008, 4:45 pm 4:45 pm
Give it up Clinton. Take your red face and retire. It is all the way for Obama now and rightly so. America has to have someone who will unite us or we will not make it. The Clintons would only continue the downward spiral of Washington rancor.
Posted by: rockychance | January 17, 2008, 4:46 pm 4:46 pm
ALEX, you bring up an interesting point not really considered before. OK, so maybe some illegals will vote but not nearly as many citizens who wouldn’t have been allowed to vote if Bill had his way! All the more reason that former Lawyers like Clinton should have done something about the rules way before a week out from the caucuses after the union supported Obama and not the Clinton camp, as initially expected. If they can’t even get something as simple as this straight, and didn’t read tne National security document fully before voting for teh Iraq war then I have to ask, is Hillary ready to be President. Apparently not, and certainly Bill should be staying out of it; this is not his unconstituitonal third term as many of their supporters seem to indicate from their comments.
Posted by: Dennis | January 17, 2008, 4:47 pm 4:47 pm
The provisions for voting at the “at large” caucus sites were agreed on by the Democratic Party (NV and National) in March 2007 (10 months ago). Nobody complained. A week ago the culinary workers’ union endorsed Obama, then suddenly the teachers’ union files a lawsuit to stop them and Bill Clinton complains about “unfairness”. Not a coincidence.
Posted by: D | January 17, 2008, 4:48 pm 4:48 pm
I agree, D.
These guys (Clinton camp) know exactly what they are doing. This is just like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth did for Bush.
I don’t buy their lies.
Posted by: Joe | January 17, 2008, 4:52 pm 4:52 pm
most of you are very intelligent people you see this for what it is desperation on the part of the clinton camp you also have noticed that so far obama has not been slinging any “crap” only fighting back when the clinton campaign war machine attacks him. go barrack go
Posted by: buckbuick1 | January 17, 2008, 4:58 pm 4:58 pm
Let’s be honest. Both Obama and Clinton are savvy politicians. Whether or not Hilary had anything to do with this is besides the point. If Union endorsed Hilary, Obama (or its surrogates) would have filed the suit anyway. It’s politics. If you all ACTUALLY think Obama is above the fray when it comes to this election, then God help this country.
Whether or not this is fair, that’s up to the courts. At this point, it says “fair.” So let’s leave it at that. Personally, this country is a one person – one vote system. So by making it easier for certain people to vote compared to other groups is against the intent of the framers.
Posted by: Sean | January 17, 2008, 4:59 pm 4:59 pm
I wondeer if Bill is realizing how much of his own credibility he is burning right now?
Posted by: Louis | January 17, 2008, 5:03 pm 5:03 pm
Y-E-S !!!!! I love it – I love it – I love it
Being a foreigner I don’t get to vote but I really don’t like Hillary, she sounds fake to me, I don’t trust her
Posted by: Valerie | January 17, 2008, 5:07 pm 5:07 pm
Hill’s continues bragging about her experience will be her ultimate downfall as she tries to distort Barack’s. Time will come when she will be confronted with her lies and would appear like a broken record repeating the lies endlessly. If the voters can just see the comparative legislative records of them, Barack will win hands down. Her performance would be amateur-like compared to Barack’s visionary and statesman. Even her longer tenure in the
Senate will show the voters that all she did was to hog for spotlight with little substance to back up her experience, except her drinking challenge to male colleagues in former Soviet states in Asia. Presenting people she’ve helped along is in the tradition of Tammany Hall politicians, perhaps she should be running as mayor of the city instead of US president. She has a parochial mentality and have remained so with her short vision but relying heavily on advisers, even on her own personal appearance. With that kind of personality, she is not fit to run a country and the voters should not entrust it to someone with false experience and a track record of lying.
Posted by: wilson | January 17, 2008, 5:09 pm 5:09 pm
You mean there are Democrats that were trying to suppress votes, Oh Golly, and I thought only republicans did that. *sarcasm*
Posted by: Anonymous | January 17, 2008, 5:12 pm 5:12 pm
Absolutely delighted that Hillary didn’t get her way.
Posted by: Kate | January 17, 2008, 5:13 pm 5:13 pm
Their were enough scandals during Clinton’s two terms as President do we need more of the same.
1. Lies
2. Sex Fiend
3. Womanizing
4. No Morals waste land
5. Ran Executive Office based of Polls
6. Sold the Lincoln bedroom for highest to bidder
7. Impeached
8. Smoked, but do not inhale
9. White Night in shining Armor for Blacks?
10. NAFTA, peace dividend base closure
11. CHINA, MFN, WTO
Posted by: Boyddollar | January 17, 2008, 5:13 pm 5:13 pm
Wait a minute people. They are only endorsing him because of race, and especially because of gender. Don’t give me that crap! It’s really pathetic the way you bash Hillary. I wonder what you all would do if it was your wife, girlfriend, and especially your mother!
Posted by: Marge | January 17, 2008, 5:20 pm 5:20 pm
I have three observations. First, the headline is misleading. I watched the video. Bill Clinton “told it like it was” and gave the reporter (who asked the same question over and over and over again) as good as he got. I don’t see where that meets the definition of raging. Maybe it meets the media’s definiton because Bill did not agree with them. Second, another person said that Democrats were trying to suppress votes. I don’t see where objecting to giving one group of workers the ability to vote at a workplace (unless ALL those who must work on Saturdays are given that same ability) qualifes as suppressing votes. Third, I would like to see the media critique, scrutinize, and criticize Barack Obama as they do the Clintons. By the way, I am an undecided voter at this point, so I have no horses in this race. I do believe in calling things fairly.
Posted by: savethemiddleclass | January 17, 2008, 5:26 pm 5:26 pm
2008500Late, I have a grip are you ready, I’m for Obama? We know who you’re for don’t we?
Posted by: Boyddollar | January 17, 2008, 5:27 pm 5:27 pm
More and more the Clintons are appearing like George Bush looking for Court sided win. I was a Clinton supporters but It is time for a CHANGE.
Posted by: All About Bill | January 17, 2008, 5:28 pm 5:28 pm
The Clinton Camp’s attempt to disenfranchise voters show that they will go to any lengths to win the Whitehouse, no matter how unscrupulous. We got these dirty tricks from Bush. I expected more from a Democrat. Very disallusioned.
Posted by: crintigger | January 17, 2008, 5:35 pm 5:35 pm
There were enough scandals during Clinton’s two terms as President do we need more of the same.
1. Lies
2. Sex Fiend
3. Womanizing
4. No Morals waste land
5. Ran Executive Office based of Polls
6. Sold the Lincoln bedroom to the highest bidder
7. Impeached
8. Smoked, but did not inhale
9. White Night in shining Armor for Blacks?
10. NAFTA, peace dividend, base closure
11. CHINA, MFN, WTO
Posted by: Boyddollar | January 17, 2008, 5:46 pm 5:46 pm
“I don’t see where objecting to giving one group of workers the ability to vote at a workplace (unless ALL those who must work on Saturdays are given that same ability) qualifes as suppressing votes”
–’savethemiddleclass’, one problem is that the casino workers, unlike regular workers across the state who also work weekends, have far longer shifts – often up to 16 + hours, as opposed to a regular 8 hours, so they may well not have time to get in and caucus elsewhere. Another issue is that if camp Clinton didn’t like it, why did they wait 6 + months to protest and helped come up with this legislation in the first place?!!! Obviously people are suspect that they were fine with it until the union decided to give their nod to O instead of Hillary, as was widely expected! It seems pretty simple, really.
Posted by: dmkry | January 17, 2008, 5:48 pm 5:48 pm
Savethemiddleclass: I agree with you, Bill did not appear to be ‘raging’. Just wordy!! In regards to your 2nd comment about one group of people having the advantage of voting at the workplace’: I think the issue that so many folks objected to is that the teacher’s union was trying to change the rules at the end of the game. Noone minded when the caucus locations were established. Only after the union which supported Obama gave the endorsement to him did the Teacher’s union object. And they’re supporting Clinton. I don’t know of too many school teachers who work on Saturday, so why should they care unless there are some Clintonian shenanigans going on. (Again!)
Posted by: Jan | January 17, 2008, 5:49 pm 5:49 pm
Hillary will never abandon the people of Michigan or any American no matter what anyone or organization tell her.
Posted by: tom | January 17, 2008, 5:57 pm 5:57 pm
NO CLINTON THEIR TERM. . . STATUS QUO MUST GO! . . .
WHO IS REALLY RUNNING FOR THE CLINTONS’ THIRD TERM, BILL OR HILARY? . . . The Clintons already destroyed their legacy when they defiled the White House, underine the Presidency, kill off the candidacy of Al Gore, allowed the election of the bungling bush, who gave us the UNPROVOKED war that emptied the nation’s treasury and kill off the economy! . . Now that they have an aircraft (Ill Force One) the self-absorbed and self-destructive Clintons can just FLY AWAY and not campaign for the destruction of the US of A!
Posted by: Gobama | January 17, 2008, 6:09 pm 6:09 pm
Boyddollar; don’t forget stealing Whitehouse stuff when they left. This decision is so right! I can’t believe the gall of the Clinton camp to file a suit after the rules were establish and apparently agreed on. I still don’t understand Bill Clinton’s statement that the casino workers vote count as five votes or maybe more. What the heck does that even mean?
Posted by: LongT | January 17, 2008, 6:12 pm 6:12 pm
OK, I misspoke. The Clinton campaign had nothing to do with the lawsuit. RIGHT!!!!
Posted by: LongT | January 17, 2008, 6:14 pm 6:14 pm
savethemiddleclass | Jan 17, 2008 5:26:38 PM
The MEDIA THRIVES ON NEGATIVITY, of which the Clintons generate much and Obama, The Uniter, generates none at all.
So when a former President continues to lower the standard of the Presidency (as he did back in the days when he defiled the White House) then the self-destructive Clintons are going to get a lot of the wrong kinds of scrutiny from the Media.
Posted by: Gobama | January 17, 2008, 6:18 pm 6:18 pm
Marge; Gender? There are women in the union. Race? There are whites and Hispanics in the union. Your rational doesn’t hold up. Anyway, it’s beside the point. The issue is if any campaign should be able to change the rules after the fact. And now it has been decided.
Posted by: LongT | January 17, 2008, 6:23 pm 6:23 pm
Boyddollar
In the Caucus, the Dems tally delegates.
A delegate = whatever amount of voters the State Party decides; and the number is not the same in all areas of the state.
The Clinton campaign knew this fact all along; but since the Clinton camp ARROGANTLY taught that Hilary was the anointed Democrat Candidate, they did not care about the number of voters to delegate.
Now that the self-absorbed Clintons have a race to lose, they are devilishly calling foul and criticizing Nevadans.
Posted by: Gobama | January 17, 2008, 6:25 pm 6:25 pm
Is Bill Clinton going thru PMS or what? Talk about a sore loser. If the shoe were on the other foot and Hillary received the endorsements, he wouldn’t be bitching the way he does. Did he expect for her to take on every state? No way!! Not even Hawaii! Cut off being a crybaby, Bill. You win some and lose some. That’s the facts of life.
Posted by: Fran | January 17, 2008, 6:27 pm 6:27 pm
Hillary will never abandon the people of Michigan or any American no matter what anyone or organization tell her.
Posted by: tom | January 17, 2008, 6:28 pm 6:28 pm
The clintons already in court?.Hmmmmmmmm
Posted by: samuel | January 17, 2008, 6:33 pm 6:33 pm
this is for bill clinton if you respect yourself you should not attack Obama because he never said nothing to you dont forget (i didin’t do ses with the lady still there you my forget but no us be qoite.
Posted by: george | January 17, 2008, 6:34 pm 6:34 pm
Justice Served
Posted by: Don | January 17, 2008, 6:35 pm 6:35 pm
the delegate process in the US specifically does NOT equate to one vote, one person. the purpose of delegates is to ensure states with small populations got some say. it’s not fair but its the way it is. this state set up the casino caucus a year ago to get more involvement on purpose and nobody complained.
comes across as a type of swiftboat behavior to complain about it now that it looks like alot might vote for obama.
well, go OBAMA. i’m tired of the sos bush tactics…and not willing to put up with it from clinton
Posted by: vmcgreen | January 17, 2008, 6:58 pm 6:58 pm
HILLARY CLINTON DID NOT DO THIS THE TEACHERS DID AFTER SEEING THAT SAINT OBAMA GOT THE ENDORSEMENT FOR THE UNION! THEY ALL SHOULD BE ABLE TO VOTE AND YOU ALL ARE LOSERS FOR NOT STANDING UP FOR THE VOTERS RIGHTS! IM SURE IF HILLARY WON THE ENDORSEMENT YOU ALL WOULD BE CRYING IN YOUR SLEEP! GO AWAY HILL HATERS, OH AND IM FROM CALIFORNIA AND OBAMA HAS NO CHANCE! FIND OUT ABOUT TONY REZKO O LOVERS FIND OUT HOW MUCH HE CARE ABOUT ETHICS.
Posted by: BILL | January 17, 2008, 7:06 pm 7:06 pm
Gobama: EVERY candidate, including yours, generates negativity for some people. You say Obama is a uniter. That remains to be seen. George W. also claimed to be a uniter. I agree with another person who said ALL candidates have skeltons in their closet. I am simply tired of the Clinton-bashing. The media not only THRIVES on negativity; they GENERATE negativity. My point was I want to see the negativity generated equally.
Posted by: savethemiddleclass | January 17, 2008, 7:31 pm 7:31 pm
aww ScubaGuy you figured em out too kwik. slick willy dang sure aint smart enuff to get hired out on any good jobs by himself.whats he doin now? waitin on the ol’ lady to hook him up,of course.
Posted by: two2thehead | January 17, 2008, 7:43 pm 7:43 pm
I am a culinary union member.
Let clarify something about the ‘at large precincts’:
1. The precincts were developed not just so that ciulinary member could vot, but so that any one working with in 2 and a half mile of the nine at large precincts could vot. This was a policy of inclusion such that airport employees, gas station attendants, school custodians, ANYONE workning within 2 and a half miles could vote.
2. Bill Cinton suggested that only culinary workers could vote.. he lied. Bill Clinton said on Monday that he was in support of the lawsuits, and then yesterday that he wasn’t.. he lied.
Next let me remind the reader that after Iowa, Hillary decried the caucus process for the fact that it disenfrachised working class people who could not get out to caucus. When she had a chance to stand up for the workers that had the unprecidented opportunity to vote at the ‘at large sites’ she remained silent, and the silence was deafening.
Finally, if the Nevada State Teachers Union who brought this failed law suit to bear in the first place, had any vision and leadership, then they would have shown it a year ago instead of 6 days before the caucus in terms of giving their workers an opportunity to vote.
Posted by: matt | January 17, 2008, 9:07 pm 9:07 pm
I hope soon-to-be President Hillary Clinton is keeping a list of all the backstabbing losers who went for Barack years after President Bill Clinton stood up and supported them when they needed support.
As for Nevada…the place WREAKS of mob activity from the Culinary Union. I am sure they are directly threatening people to vote for Obama or don’t vote at all.
And the point about illegals making their vote count…is pathetic. So much for Democracy!
Posted by: Michael | January 17, 2008, 9:55 pm 9:55 pm
Gee, Billy. The whole thing kinda backfired, didn’t it! Be careful, you don’t want to have a stroke. But maybe you are in better health than you look, hmmm.. after all those women? And they all ratted on you. Too bad. What goes around comes around.
Posted by: CS3539 | January 18, 2008, 3:10 pm 3:10 pm