What! Bill Clinton making shit up? Nooooo!

And abolish the US Senate while we are at it!!!

I'm sick of the poor press coverage. The underlying story describes Bill Clinton as "just inches from his face".

Well.

Go watch the video and see what passes for "just inches from his faace." Gimme a break.

The article also says "Clinton's final round, eyes blazing."

Was there ever a time when people just reported the facts? C'mon.

I'm sick of the poor press coverage. The underlying story describes Bill Clinton as "just inches from his face".

Well.

Go watch the video and see what passes for "just inches from his face." Gimme a break.

The article also says "Clinton's final round, eyes blazing."

Was there ever a time when people just reported the facts? C'mon.

So what is the disadvantage that the teachers see in the current set up? And the advantage that the Obama camp sees in the current set up? Obviously, if the Obama camp is so adamant about keeping the current set up in place, they see some advantage to them in doing so. What is it? I wish someone would spend som time explaining this -- rather than reporting about who is supporting whom in the fight and why they're evil.

The reason we do things this way is because the parties treat Iowa and New Hampshire as sacred. And that means that if the Democrats wanted to move Nevada up to give it more influence, they had to make it a caucus so as not to offend New Hampshire with its primary. Even though caucuses may work at least in a mediocre fashion in Iowa, but don't work at all in a state with even a midsized population and a major city like Nevada has.

There are lots of other people who are against the "special" caucus arrangements, including some culinary workers themselves.

Why? Because they say that the way the on-the-job caucuses work is that UNION BOSSES will be breathing down your neck to make sure you vote for the "right" person (which in this case is Obama).
Everyone gathers in a big room and their votes are KNOWN.
So, do you think workers who are for Hillary or Edwards would DARE GO AGAINST THEIR UNION BOSSES' WISHES?

It's much more democratic and fair to allow workers to caucus in their neighborhoods where they have much less pressure to vote for the candidate their BOSSES are supporting.

That's the real reason why it is not a good idea to have people cast open votes at the place of work, especially when their union bosses are supporting someone.

I've read a little more about this since last posting, and I have to say -- it sounds like a plan that's intention was to give the Culinary Workers Union greater control over and a larger voice in the process.

Work place caucusing is a great idea -- but it's not a fair or democratic idea if only applies to some limited number of workplaces.

Clintons twisted the Nevada rules to their favor before, assuming they would win the union vote. now when they lost the union vote, they proclaim their own twist as unfair. This is why America doesn't want hil-bily

Clintons twisted the Nevada rules to their favor before, assuming they would win the union vote. now when they lost the union vote, they proclaim their own twist as unfair. This is why America doesn't want hil-bily

Don't be so naive. Do you think the Obama people are so pure that they wouldn't do the same if they were in the Clintons' position?

This whole union caucusing thing is a pure power play to force union members to vote the way the leadership wants them to!

The reason the Culinary Workers' Union was such a juicy endorsement for Obama is because the membership is 30 to 35 percent Latino. If left alone, the great majority of Latinos will vote for Clinton but under the "sponsorship" or dictatorship of the union bosses, they will be coerced into voting for Obama.

The point is the whole caucus idea is not a great one, given the open nature of the voting and the fact that with strong union bosses bearing down on you, it's very difficult to cast a vote for anyone other than who your bosses want you to vote for.

In other words, the leaders of the Culinary Union now have a "CAPTIVE ELECTORATE" who will surely deliver virtually all their votes to Obama--not because they want to but because they have to if they don't want to antagonize the BOSSES who will be breathing down their necks.

Is this fair to the workers? Is this a mockery of democracy?

Is this enfranchisement or disenfranchisement?

Is this any different from the old days when minorities were deprived of an opportunity to vote under various guises?

Is this, as the Culinary Union bosses claim, "encouraging diversity," OR IS IT COERCION when they well know that they will do everything in their power to DELIVER THE GREAT MAJORITY OF THEIR UNION MEMBERS' VOTES TO OBAMA, WHOM THEY HAVE ENDORSED?

There are no white knights in shining armer! Everyone has an ulterior motive, including the Culinary Union leadership who claim to be ensuring that everyone votes but in reality, they want to ensure that EVERYONE VOTES THEIR WAY and the only way they can guarantee that is to GET THEM TO VOTE IN PUBLIC AT THEIR PLACES OF WORK UNDER THE GLARE OF BIG BROTHER.

"Do you think the Obama people are so pure that they wouldn't do the same if they were in the Clintons' position?"

I doubt there would be a lawsuit if Clinton had won the Culinary Workers endorsement, yes.

"So where did Clinton arrive at this number? I can't say for sure, but it seems he just made it up."

Well that all depends on what the definition of 5 is.

But seriously folks, no real Democrat can support 11th hour lawsuits of this nature. Filing a law suit a mere hours before an election is done for only ONE purpose -- and that is voter suppression.

Anything that encourages more people to vote I think is a good thing. Though I think they should allow people that live in the vicinity to also vote at this mega voting centers there should be a way to track all of this. Im a little suspicious of this ivotronic voting machines until there is a paper ballot to trace every vote i think they should not be used. Too many glitches and the whipe out of votes secret programs could be used to whip out votes in certian areas. Like in Michagan nobody is talking about it but its a reality 26 counties in michagan had there votes wiped out in the uncommited vote.. Well where did they go and how much...looking at the the uncomited vote was 12 % higher on paper ballots then these electronic voting machines.. this seriously needs to be discused and addresed Good for Kisenich to stand up and demand a recount.
I do sorta agree that this open style of announicing who u are voting for in a union style setting may not be tottaly fair. Maybe they should allow certain ones who want privacy with there vote to have it. THough i think these are the type of things that should be worked out years b4 election not a week b4. It was agreed to by all parties involved including the clinton camp who figured she would just walk into nevada and get that endorsement she didnt get it now she cries foul. One thing about obama u got to like is he always manages to keep his cool and will make his judgements on the long term intrests of all of us not a select few. I think Billary is pretty good on policy issues though she bases her campaign out of fear and twists everything and it looks dishonest and not genuine. Hopefully america looks for a future than a past..

All the people complaining about the (supposed) lack of purity by Obama's campaign need to keep one thing in sight and that is this:

The state party agreed on this last year. Some of the people brining this suit were at those discussion and voted for the plan (or at the bare minimum, didn't challenge it). The bottom line is that it would not in any way have been hard to game out scenarios in which any candidate won the endorsements of the unions. That Obama won Iowa and then got the union endorsements in Nevada was the trigger for the suit; the teacher's union assumed the other unions would line up behind Hillary and they were wrong. It happens. But it's dirty pool to change the rules at the 11th hour because you're shortsighted.

Stop calling him "the Big Dog." Really.