Bill Clinton Defends Voter Suppression (say it ain't so, Bill, say it ain't so)

[JackORoses]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/14/578200.aspx

LAS VEGAS -- Bill Clinton today defended a state NEA-backed lawsuit over caucus sites, saying that all Democrats should play by the same rules.

Clinton was asked about the suit this morning by a student at Green Valley High School, located in the Las Vegas suburb of Henderson. He said that, in essence, state Democrats made "a special rule only for" members of the Culinary union, the most powerful in the state, to be able to caucus at their work sites rather than at their home precincts. "I think the rules oughta be the same for everybody," he said. "I question why you would ever have a temporary caucus site and say only the people that work there -- i.e. the people that we know are going to vote in a certain way or we think they will -- should be able to caucus here. I think that we oughta make it more possible for everybody to vote."

(Of course, we'll ask again: If the Culinary Workers had endorsed Hillary, would there even be a lawsuit? And if so, would Bill be defending it?)

When asked next about the Culinary Workers endorsing Obama over Hillary, Clinton claimed that the campaign's voter outreach found that many members actually support his wife. "It will be interesting if they will be able to do so because you have to vote in public ," he said. "I believe if the test is who's got the best voting record for labor the answer is she does."

Speaking later at an event in Las Vegas, Clinton again emphasized the downside of a caucus rather than a primary. He claimed that polling taken in Nevada since Hillary's victory in the New Hampshire primary showed her with a steady lead among state Democrats, but that caucuses "may not be about public support." He implored the audience to "give voice to the majority." "Don't let other people out organize you," he said.

*

Damn.
This is a pretty dark day.

So Bill says,"Let's make it the same for everyone so don't let those folks Caucus.
But even if they did Caucus, a bunch of them would be for Hillary.
But it doesn't matter because the Caucus system is antiquated anyways.
That's the ticket!"

[Colobo]

1. Poor Bill... he's mentally stuck in the 90s.

[suston96]

2. Another caucus screw-up, another reason for a federal national primary....

....where all voter's have the same equal power as everyone else.

[Buck Stopin Harry]

17. I sure would like to see one day when the whole country votes .

I have floated that Idea out to one of my reps. He asked me if I would be willing to go to a counsel meeting. Of corse I said yes. Things have to get started somewhere.
At the very least Bill dose sound out of touch. I am suprised.

[sandnsea]

3. And in Iowa the shift workers couldn't caucus

and damn that made the Clintons mad mad mad, but those pesky students, well we fought for their right to vote against Republicans but we just never thought about them voting against a Clinton...

[mod mom]

50. why shouldn't every voter who wants to participate, get to? WTF Bill? Why not

make the process work for these voters working long hours for MLK Weekend in Las Vegas??

[sandnsea]

62. We should have all open precincts

With an honest election system, we ought to be able to have a central database of voters and people allowed to vote for national and state elections anyplace in a city they want to vote. Send the signature to a database that matches it and vote. I might even consider the eyeball technology if it would bring everybody in and make it easier to vote. We have to stop living like this is the 1800's.

[Igel]

58. Lots of people couldn't caucus.

But it was the same rule for everybody, regardless of union membership, SES, or distance from work. As for what happened in Iowa, I personally don't like caucasuses because they exclude people. But it was equal-opportunity injustice, if you will--if you're poor and don't have transportation, or if you're out of state, or work too far from their caucus site. They're great in sedentary, agrarian societies; but in the current one, they're not so good.

Nevada apparently has two rules: The first, by county, as Nevada law (it's claimed) mandates; the second, by selected workplaces, which must be equivalent to a county (if we allegedly want to abide by Nevada law). Now, I understand the pragmatic reason for making special rules for the Culinary union; but I have to wonder if there might not be other concentrations of voters that would turn out the same number of caucus goers, but which get no special dispensation. In other words, it used to be as in Iowa; but then there was a second layer of injustice added, allegedly after the litigants approved the draft caucus plan last March, in order to reduce the injustice selectively. But "selective" application of rules always strikes me as more than a bit off.

I'm really curious to see how the court rules: Are the special caucuses counter to Nevada law, as claimed, or not?

[JackORoses]

78. once again you insinuate that this is only for the Culinary Union workers

You are mistaken.

[sandnsea]

98. The Party sets the caucus rules

First and foremost, that's Nevada law. The Secy of State has oversight.

The caucus sites were chosen based on employers with 4,000 or more employees, but the caucuses are not limited to those employees. They serve everybody within 2.5 miles of the strip. They are weighted the same as precincts with 4,000 voters.

There isn't anyplace else in Nevada that has that concentration of workers.

There will always be people who can't caucus, or vote, due to work requirements.

And back to the beginning, this is a Democratic Party election, NOT a national election.

[Cha]

4. Like he gives a fuck about anything

but getting his craggy ol' ass back in the cat bird seat.

[Tulkas]

5. Fits a pattern

Well.....


First the Clintons tried to keep the college students in Iowa from voting,

then Bill complained that New Hampshire was to soon after Iowa (when Hill was behind in the polls)

now they are fighting the caucus in Nevada.


They also are throwing mud anywhere and everywhere possible, some people might think that they are trying to discourage new voters from becoming involved in the democratic process.


Anyone else hope Hillary loses ?

[JanusAscending]

6. WELCOME to DU !!

and yes........ that would be me:hi: and many others around here!!

[Cha]

10. I'm disgusted that we finally

have a great chance for the white house and a dlc con artist is trying to weasel her way through scorched earth policy with her hasbeen husband in tow.

[Yuugal]

11. Wecome to DU! nt

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

Welcome, I guess.

And, if she's the nominee I guess I'll be saying adios. MKJ

[David Zephyr]

22. Welcome to the DU, Tulkas

:hi:

[Yael]

34. Welcome to DU

:hi:

Line forms over there on the left. :P

[mod mom]

55. Does fit a pattern and this should be an issue to raise. I thought the Democratic

Party wanted to make it easier for all voter to participate. I'm not into the "pick and choose who gets to vote" policy we've seen before with the Republicans.

[rox63]

7. These caucus locations have been set up for months

Why did they only find an objection to them in the last few days? It's all about the union endorsement that wen to Obama.

[TeamJordan23]

8. Exactly. nm

[Atman]

13. Not "exactly" at all.

Can teachers caucus in their classrooms? Can airport personnel caucus in terminal? No. Fuck Bill's timing, Obama's endorsement, etc. It's wrong, and it's precious little different from the gerrymandering Tom Delay did in Texas. I don't see why the CU should have it's own special set of rules.

.

[JackORoses]

19. Quit pretending that these sites are only for the CU. It is gross disinformation on your part.

[Atman]

32. I supplied no disinformation. I merely stated some facts.

How many workers are at McClaren airport? Do they get to caucus on the tarmac? How about the teachers? Can they caucus in the classroom?

I don't give a flying fruitcake who this was designed for. It's an unfair system.

So...would you care to sling some more mud and take a guess who I'm backing in this race? Because I'd bet you'd be wrong. I'm not interested in the benefits to any candidate, even the one I support. I'm concerned about the fairness. One set of workers is getting a special treatment that no other workers/voters are getting. Period. It is unfair. That is my ONLY concern.

.

[Yael]

37. But do you respect the fact that the voted on this and overwhelmingly approved it?

[Atman]

48. I don't have that information.

Educate me. Who voted on this? Who is "they?" Don't go all defensive and ballistic (or should I say STOP going all defensive?) I'm asking a question of you, and here is your chance to help enlighten me. Who voted on this set-up?

.

[Yael]

53. I am actually quite calm, and apologize if I am coming off as aggressive as that is not my intent

This was voted on in December of 2006 by the Nevada Democratic party and signed, sealed and delivered in September of 2007 with no objections.

4 members of the plaintiff group were a party to the approval process.

2 days after Senator Obama gets the coveted CU nod, the lawsuit is filed claiming that it is unfair.

Note that 4 members of the filing class were party to the approval process.

This is why people are calling foul, Hillary has not commented on it, and the uproar over Big Dawg's comment is lighting up the joint.

I have no dog in this hunt. My guy is staying out of the fray (for the most part() -- but you can't argue with the timeline.

[Atman]

70. I agree that the timeline is suspect.

I won't even call it "suspicious," rather, very poor. It obviously set up this whole argument.

But as for why I asked "who voted for it;" it clearly wasn't THE PEOPLE who voted for this. That is my point. I think it more important to make this fair to EVERYONE. For the record, my dog isn't in this hunt either. I understand Las Vegas is a major component of Nevada, but it is not Nevada. It is one city, and the strip is one section of one city. As for the flip-flopping plaintiffs, I can't explain why they switched. Maybe they realized they made a mistaken ruling. Maybe they were Clinton ops. Who knows. I don't know what thought processes or lobbying caused them to change their minds.

All I know is that it seems unfair to me to arrange special rules to accommodate one group of people who are otherwise perfectly capable of participating in the same manner as the every other resident of the state of Nevada.

.

[Yael]

76. I hear ya

I have to side with the original party decision though. Reid & Co. thought it was a good idea at the time -- I think they need to live with the decision.

Noting that I am a late (April) primary state, so live vicariously through the rest of you, so may be picking a fight out of my own frustration in not being able to be a part of the process...

[JackORoses]

54. you said the CU had a special set of rules

They don't.
This is for all workers on the Strip.

There are literally thousands more workers on the Strip than at McLaren Airport.
There is no comparison really.

If they want the airport workers to have caucus sites why isn't the suit designed to create additional sites rather than to close the ones already created?
This is where your whole argument falls apart.

It's not really about equal rights, it's about Voter Suppression.

[Atman]

74. We disagree, Jack.

You know as well as I do that my point is not the number of people at the goddam airport. I used McLaren as an example of another "workplace" which might well benefit from an on-site caucus.

Now I'm exiting this thread. I'm not supporting either candidate, you obviously are, so you fight your little heart out. If you're that afraid of Obama's chances, what do you think will happen to him as the larger race unfolds? If Obama is so worried, why isn't he involved in protecting the previous arrangement? Maybe he's more confident of his chances than his supporters are.

:shrug:

.

[JackORoses]

82. you didn't answer my question. why not add more sites, rather than closing open ones?

[Atman]

9. Okay, can we back off and think for a moment?

Bill Clinton makes an excellent point; the Culinary Union is a big force in Las Vegas, whose membership could very well determine the winner in Nevada. If you are not a member of that union, you'll have to LEAVE WORK to caucus for your candidate. You'll face a burden that the CU members will not. This seems to me to be wholly unfair. Why can't auto mechanics and grocery store clerks caucus at work? Why only the Culinary Union? It is disingenuous to say "Well if the CU had endorsed Hillary then Bill wouldn't mind." Maybe, maybe not, but that is certainly very far from the issue at hand. It shouldn't matter in the slightest who endorses whom...Bill Clinton is right. This is a special rule created simply to give an edge to a certain candidate, and it is wrong.

.

[JackORoses]

15. These sites are for Workers on the Strip, not just Culinary Union members

nice try, sHillarite

You cannot explain away Voter Suppression.

The more you try, the worse it looks. Bill would have been better off saying nothing.

[Kolesar]

16. Yes, and this is hardly "voter suppression" ... eom

[Atman]

21. Who said it was "voter suppression?"

Does it have to count only if it's "suppression?" I believe the teachers union brought the suit. How many teachers are in Nevada? Why can't THEY caucus at work? Please, seriously, tell me what the difference is? Why is this CU special? This isn't like access for the disabled or something...the CU workers can leave their jobs if they want to caucus, just any other worker in Nevada will have to do. Really...why is the CU special?

.

[Kolesar]

26. JackORoses ... eom

[JackORoses]

28. Did you know that the Teachers of Nevada have actually requested ther Union to cease and desist?

[HughMoran]

30. Ummmm

the O/P?

[Atman]

35. Oh, so we're going to play silly games now?

Then reply to the OP, not to me. I never called in voter suppression, and I don't care what the op called it. The op won't determine the outcome of the vote.

.

[HughMoran]

40. ok

silly games - ok :shrug:

[KittyWampus]

36. why would teachers need to caucus at work? They have Saturday off. And some schools very well may be

caucus sites.

And how many times do you have to be told- it's not just Culinary Union members who are able to caucus at these sites.

[Yael]

44. There you go with pesky facts and everything.

Leave Brittany Alone!!! :cry:

[Atman]

47. Okay, so leave teachers out of the equation.

Now what?

.

[Yael]

49. Quoting MSNBC

(Of course, we'll ask again: If the Culinary Workers had endorsed Hillary, would there even be a lawsuit? And if so, would Bill be defending it?)

Interesting question, isn't it?

More crap from Camp Clinton.

[Atman]

52. I don't find the question interesting or relevent

:shrug:

.

[Igel]

63. The caucus is on a Saturday.

Schools are closed on Saturdays. So the teacher's union has problem with no special rules for workplace caucusing.

Now, if you're an orthodox Jew ... different story, I suspect. At least those in my church wouldn't have made an exception to vote on the Sabbath.

[JackORoses]

23. If the lawsuit succeeds, will the net result be less Caucusing Nevadans?

C'mon... I know you can answer honestly.

[rox63]

24. It wasn't seen that way until a few days ago, when the union made their endorsement

Would the Clintons be objecting if the union had endorsed Hillary? I doubt it.

[HughMoran]

25. Shhhhh

This isn't about fairness!

[KittyWampus]

31. Wrong, it's a rule to enfranchise minority voters. MANY of whom work on the strip. These workers are

concentrated in an area. Hundreds.

[Atman]

46. I know, I've been to Las Vegas.

"The Strip" is NOT Nevada...it is a boulevard with a bunch of hotels and casinos on it. Last I heard this was the "Nevada Caucus" not "The Strip Caucus." Why aren't you concerned about all the other minority workers in Nevada? Why do ONLY the workers on the strip need special rules to "enfranchise" them?

.

[David Zephyr]

12. And yet Hillary was on TV yesterday claiming that she had no bone this fight.

And here is Bill today championing it.

Talk about fairy tales.

They can't even keep their stories straight for a single day.

[MonkeyFunk]

14. Why can't both be true?

Hillary has no role in it. Bill thinks the suit's a good idea. Where's the contradiction?

[JackORoses]

41. Bill wouldn't be defending it if Hillary had no role in this

Be a smart Monkey!
You can do it.

[MonkeyFunk]

59. You didn't explain the contradiction

at all.

[JackORoses]

75. ok

Do you really think that Hillary would let Bill get anywhere near a potential hint of Vote Suppression
unless it was to defend her interests?

She knows the potential backlash and would not risk getting involved unless it just so happened that she already was.

[MonkeyFunk]

92. I'm not a mind-reader

you're not providing any evidence. Just your supposition.

[sandnsea]

43. Curiousity

Is there anything that would cause you to stop supporting Hillary. Anything at all.

[MonkeyFunk]

61. and is there anything that will make you support her?

Don't ask daft questions.

[sandnsea]

66. I'm serious

You keep defending the indefensible. It doesn't surprise me coming from some people. But you? It honestly shocks the hell out of me. How can you pretend they aren't behind the law suit in Nevada? Or that she didn't know what her surrogates were out there saying? Really and truly, is there anything she could do that would make you reject her?

[MonkeyFunk]

71. all this is entirely defensible

it's all mock outrage.
It's bullshit.

It's all based on people inferring what they want.

Nobody's presented evidence that the Clintons are behind this suit, and even if they were, nobody's convinced the suit is without merit.

[sandnsea]

81. Well I guess there's nothing then

It is not mock outrage. The complaints about the students voting in Iowa was bullshit, and the excuse that the shift workers couldn't vote. Claiming Obama's poll workers were illegal was bullshit. Now there's the law suit when Nevada state law clearly says the Party makes the rules for the primary and the Secy of State has oversight over the election. Yeah, it's all just one big concocted bashfest.

[MonkeyFunk]

85. and there's nothing wrong

with filing a suit. The courts will decide.


And nobody has shown any evidence that Hillary Clinton is behind this, nor have they shown how Bill's support for it means anything nefarious.

[JackORoses]

89. "Let the Courts Decide!" isn't that the Bush Doctrine?

[MonkeyFunk]

93. How else do you propose to resolve disputes?

[sandnsea]

91. Because the courts aren't political

Yeah, right.

Bill supports it. Hillary's endorser's law firm files the suit. Another endorser is the director of the group filing.

But Hillary is innocent.

You're smokin' some really good shit, or something.

[MonkeyFunk]

94. Where's your evidence?

on edit:

The question before the court isn't whether this is unfair to Hillary Clinton. It's whether this is unfair to the voters of Nevada. Keep that in mind.

[sandnsea]

95. The question is whether it's a Party matter

and it is. It follows the rules of weighting in an over 4,000 caucus. Anybody within 2.5 miles of an at large caucus site can vote. No matter what they do, there will be people who won't be able to caucus because they're at work. It's a non-issue.

And I asked you about supporting Hillary. It doesn't take a signed confession to draw the logical conclusion. It is possible to look at a preponderance of the evidence and conclude that Bill and Hil are just not who you thought they were.

[MonkeyFunk]

99. and parties

can violate the voting rights act, too.

[sandnsea]

100. Yes but it's more limited

Otherwise we could all say we were being disenfranchised by different primary procedures in different states.

[JackORoses]

86. ahh, so now you are defending the suit as well

I see the Hillarite wagons are being circled around this lawsuit now. I see it spreading through the ranks.

Good Luck convincing Americans to give up their right to Vote.

[MonkeyFunk]

90. I said nobody's convinced me

that the suit is without merit.

The courts will decide that.

[cloudythescribbler]

97. Some legal analysis of the "merits" of the NV DISENFRANCHISEMENT lawsuit

Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin, a constitutional law professor who does voting rights cases (he’s also chair of Montgomery County for Obama and running to serve as a Delegate), told me that the case is without merit: “The Equal Protection claim in this case is silly and would be thrown out even if it hadn’t been raised in the eleventh hour in a transparently political way. The claim boils down to the argument that it discriminates against teachers and other professionals to set up polling places in casinos for people who work there since these employees then get an unfair advantage in access to the polls. On this curious theory, of course, it would violate Equal Protection for some people to live two miles away from a polling place while others live on the same block. The irony is that most polling places are in public schools ! Setting up polling stations in workplaces where there are tens of thousands of voters who would otherwise be unlikely to vote is perfectly rational. It’s also a public policy that progressives should celebrate and duplicate, not try to thwart.”

[Munch]

84. n/s

Hillary has no role in it.

Good cop.

Bill thinks the suit's a good idea.

Bad cop.

Oldest game in the play book.

:eyes:

[MonkeyFunk]

87. And where's the evidence?

Why can't both things be true?

[Munch]

101. Mutual self interest

Team Clinton (Bill and Hillary) have been playing the political game together for decades. They've had practice and lots of it. Like all good team players, they coordinate their strategy.

Now it often happens that a supporting partner does the necessary "dirty work" so the person running the ball (so to speak) can get to the goal line unobstructed. In this case one candidate remains above the fray and focused on issues while her husband runs interference.

Someone else may explain how this works in football.

And yes, Monkey Funk, this is an inductive inference -- no more, no less. Unlike a deductive syllogism, inductive reasoning always has a margin of error -- that's how statisticians make a living. Unlike a scientific study, however, the margin of error here cannot be quantified. But based on 15 years of observation re the Clintons, this Good Cop / Bad Cop hypothesis does seem likely. To me, at least.

50 years from now historians can decide the matter, if anybody still cares. Just now we are flying by the seat of our pants (in a manner based on intuition and experience rather than method -- The Free Dictionary.com).

Let's hope we don't crash -- if we do, we all go down TOGETHER.

P.S. I have no problem letting the courts decide on voting issues -- after all, they did a great job for us in Y2K -- don't you think? President Gore has certainly had a great run ever since.

(/snark) It's all an imperfect, fallible system -- flawed as are the people who designed it, the candidates running for office within it, and the electorate that get to vote for them.

I see your point. You may even be right. But the evidence that you request DOES NOT EXIST beyond a reasonable doubt -- so while I would not vote to convict Bill and Hillary on charges of dirty politics -- neither would I vote to elect either one of them to high office.

(sigh) thus another chapter in the perennial debate:

Rationalists vs. Empiricists

:eyes: (philosophy, anyone?)

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[David Zephyr]

42. This is why Hillary has 50% of the public that dislike her already.

Hillary is a prescription for a Republican sweep in November.

[IndianaGreen]

96. Imagine the Clintons back in the White House; triangulating, parsing, betraying

The three pillars of the Clinton 44 Administration are going to be:

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

[BeyondGeography]

18. He's just an older, richer, and yes, meaner version

of the guy who was almost a good President once.

It will be a fine day when he is permanently out of the way.

[IndianaGreen]

80. One thing about Bill Clinton hasn't changed, he is still on the prowl.

And one of these days, his duplicity will be exposed once again.

[AtomicKitten]

20. Beware of ANYONE trying to suppress the vote.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

60. Including by giving unfair advantages to one kind of worker over another. eom

eom

[JackORoses]

69. what kind of worker is that?

There are hundreds of professions on the Las Vegas Strip.

Go on back to the Hillarite Talking Point cue card box for your next dose.

[AtomicKitten]

73. He means the Clintons are pissed at the Culinary Union endorsement and are trying to undermine it.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

77. teachers and custodians eom

eom

[IndianaGreen]

27. Bill Clinton has reduced himself to being just another political hack

and has dug himself a political grave.

[OzarkDem]

29. Obama & Clinton have called a truce, have you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4068187

[IndianaGreen]

45. Why don't you call Bill Clinton and tell him to get on with the program!

Even Keith Olbermann noted tonight that Bill Clinton was still in attack mode.

[OzarkDem]

67. Suit yourself

I support Edwards and he's the Dem who stands to benefit most from this catfight.

[IndianaGreen]

72. Unless this catfight ends up having a ripple effect in November

and that won't do any good at all.

[Atman]

51. Obviously not.

I apparentl stepped into the Obama Vipers den.

Harumph. So much for my big "greatest page" thread. We'll just fucking eat each other alive, how about? White House be damned!

.

[Diane R]

33. Is he actually helping her at this point?

[Colobo]

38. I don't think he is.

[Yael]

56. No. No, he isn't.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

57. Like it or not he's arguing for fairness and the current plan wasn't fair. eom

eom

[ripple]

64. I'll bet it would be considered 'fair' if the CU had endorsed Hillary n/t

[JackORoses]

65. why not create more sites, rather than closing sites that are already open?

Answer: That doesn't result in less Caucusing Nevadans.

[mod mom]

68. The plan for the culinary workers was passed unanimously on 3/31/07.

If the decision to sue wasn't based upon an endorsement for Obama, then why was it challenged back then? or better yet, why weren't similar concessions proposed for the workers the NEA is worried about.

here's a link on the date passed:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/tough-guy-pol-1.html

[MonkeyFunk]

83. and then plan was changed

according to the lawsuit.

[rodeodance]

104. yes, you are right. Fainess is the issue now

[zulchzulu]

79. If people still don't think Bill Clinton is a closet Repug, here's more proof

He was handed Newt Gingrich's Contract ON America and took it and made it "his own". He passed the test by signing NAFTA and was well on his way after he got the Repugs to come in in 1994.

Of course, he thought he could get away with fucking chicks in the White House like Newts and the boys were. That's where they had him.

[AtomicKitten]

88. self-edit

nevermind

[Chasing Dreams]

102. Did he say that before or after visiting the Bunny Ranch? n/t

[rodeodance]

103. "I think the rules oughta be the same for everybody," he said. Sounds GOOD TO ME

[JackORoses]

105. Can you answer the question that no Hillarite has yet?

If the lawsuit succeeds, will it result in a net loss of Caucusing Nevadans?

[mckeown1128]

106. kick nt