Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
CAUCUS DISENFRANCHISEMENT.
The attempts by Clinton-backers to suppress caucus turnout (and the Clinton camp's unwillingness to condemn it) that Dana pointed out is especially problematic in light of Clinton's very recent lamentation that caucuses result in the "disenfranchisement" of voters:
"You have a limited period of time on one day to have your voices heard," Clinton, D-N.Y., said. "That is troubling to me. You know in a situation of a caucus, people who work during that time -- they're disenfranchised. People who can't be in the state or who are in the military, like the son of the woman who was here who is serving in the Air Force, they cannot be present."
Right before Iowa, she was on the Today show complaining about how caucuses stifle women voters. So for her campaign to not condemn attempts to make caucusing more accessible to women, people of color, the working class, etc., is at best negligent. At worst, it's granting permission for attempts to keep away from the caucuses voters who seem likely to go for Obama.
--Kate Sheppard
COMMENTS (3)
Hillary is sad and pathetic. I'm an old man, I have to say, I didn't think I could cnange or learn at this late date. But the Clintons ARE ruthless and character-free. I'd vastly prefer HRC to any of the GOP clowns, but she has no shot in hell at beating McCain, and quite honestly, the end of the Clinton era can't come fast enough for our party. And I used to love Bill ... defended him for years.
Posted by: Nick | January 14, 2008 6:57 PM
Rigging a caucus to favor the most powerful interest group in a party organization is not enfranchisment. Opposing it is not voter suppression. Enforcing the law and treating everyone equally is what we should all want.
Kate- can we assume that you will post a story demanding that all the delegates for Florida and Michigan be restored immediately? Obviously that is a much more serious and widespread case of disenfranchisement. Can we also expect to see you demand a stop to the lawsuits attempting to stop the Republicans from splitting California's electoral votes? They claim the electoral college disenfranchises people, and even though the method they are using to change it is unconstitutional, obviously according to you we shouldn't care about the law, just giving people more of a voice. I have a feeling that you have no principles and only go off on rants like this when it is in the interests of candidates you support. I doubt you will respond to any of this, but could you at least change the title of your post to partisan hack attack for Obama under the guise of outrage over law breakers being forced to actually follow election rules, or something like that.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 14, 2008 11:35 PM
So no mention of the machinist and other airport workers who don't approve of the special caucuses on the strip. If it doesn't fit your narrative you just ignore it. Nice.
Posted by: tapped is dead | January 15, 2008 12:03 AM