Nevada Caucus...

[Venom'sDad]

Well well well, it looks like the Clintons is up to their usual tricks. They file a LAW-SUIT to stop Rules, that hillary herself completely agreed to, when she was the huge front-runner; and thought, she would get the endorsement of the Culinary Union. Now behold, she seeking a court order to change the rules, because now, she says the rule isn't fair.

Next up for the Democrats were precinct caucuses Saturday in Nevada. There, Clinton's supporters awaited a court ruling on a lawsuit seeking a last-minute change in rules they agreed to months ago. Their objective was to prevent several caucuses along the Las Vegas Strip, where thousands of Culinary Workers Union employees — many of them Hispanic or black — hold jobs.

The rules were approved in March, when the former first lady was the overwhelming national front-runner in the race. But the union voted last week to endorse Obama, and the lawsuit followed.


LMFAO! Why is this _____ running? She cares nothing about the people. Just her ambitions for Power and a chapter in the History Books. She is not a leader; yet, she has proving to be a Divider.

Anyway, for the next couple weeks, anything from the Nevada Caucus for both republicans and democrats, post it here. As you can see, things are already getting ugly.

[souvlaki]

Well well well, it looks like the Clintons is up to their usual tricks. They file a LAW-SUIT to stop Rules, that hillary herself completely agreed to, when she was the huge front-runner; and thought, she would get the endorsement of the Culinary Union. Now behold, she seeking a court order to change the rules, because now, she says the rule isn't fair.




LMFAO! Why is this _____ running? She cares nothing about the people. Just her ambitions for Power and a chapter in the History Books. She is not a leader; yet, she has proving to be a Divider.

Anyway, for the next couple weeks, anything from the Nevada Caucus for both republicans and democrats, post it here. As you can see, things are already getting ugly.

Y'know, there was a period of time where even though she was not my top choice for the candidacy I still would have voted for her in a general election if she got the nomination. However, after this, and the stupid race discussions that her campaign instigated I am seriously considering not supporting her if she does win. What gets me is how she pretends to be a uniter. Even against her own party she's using dirty tricks to win. What a joke.

[EdRyder]

This is ridiculous.
The state Democratic Party unanimously approved the caucus rules last March that the Democratic National Committee signed on in August. Four of the six plaintiffs are members of the committee that approved the rules.

[hippie_hunter]

I am so ashamed to have that b***h as my Senator.

[The Senator]

Politics as usual.

Oh well.

[The Senator]

Y'know, there was a period of time where even though she was not my top choice for the candidacy I still would have voted for her in a general election if she got the nomination. However, after this, and the stupid race discussions that her campaign instigated I am seriously considering not supporting her if she does win. What gets me is how she pretends to be a uniter. Even against her own party she's using dirty tricks to win. What a joke.

She didn't instigate a conversation about race. Barack Obama did. She expanded on a recurring theme of her campaign, that hope is not a strategy alone. At a forum, she discussed that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not solely get Civil Rights legislation passed. He fought for it, yes, but in the end, that change resulted in Lyndon Johnson and his advisers drafting the Civil Rights Act, which passed in Congress and he signed into law.

Barack Obama and his supporters then made her comments into an issue of race. Her comments were never about race; they were about experience, and if any of his supporters weren't blindsided by his race to begin with, they wouldn't have made this into a big deal.

Once again, Barack Obama instigated this drawn-out discussion, and blamed it on the Hillary campaign.

[hippie_hunter]

She didn't instigate a conversation about race. Barack Obama did. She expanded on a recurring theme of her campaign, that hope is not a strategy alone. At a forum, she discussed that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not solely get Civil Rights legislation passed. He fought for it, yes, but in the end, that change resulted in Lyndon Johnson and his advisers drafting the Civil Rights Act, which passed in Congress and he signed into law.

Barack Obama and his supporters then made her comments into an issue of race. Her comments were never about race; they were about experience, and if any of his supporters weren't blindsided by his race to begin with, they wouldn't have made this into a big deal.

Once again, Barack Obama instigated this drawn-out discussion, and blamed it on the Hillary campaign.

I completely agree but to be fair to Obama, Clinton did make this arguement look worse later on.

While Obama is at fault, they both look rather childish right now.

[SuBe]

Well well well, it looks like the Clintons is up to their usual tricks. They file a LAW-SUIT to stop Rules, that hillary herself completely agreed to, when she was the huge front-runner; and thought, she would get the endorsement of the Culinary Union. Now behold, she seeking a court order to change the rules, because now, she says the rule isn't fair.




LMFAO! Why is this _____ running? She cares nothing about the people. Just her ambitions for Power and a chapter in the History Books. She is not a leader; yet, she has proving to be a Divider.

Anyway, for the next couple weeks, anything from the Nevada Caucus for both republicans and democrats, post it here. As you can see, things are already getting ugly.
Great post.

[hippie_hunter]

While I tend to disagree with Venom'sDad, his post is completely accurate on Hillary in Nevada.

[SuBe]

While I tend to disagree with Venom'sDad, his post is completely accurate on Hillary in Nevada.
Agreed. He is on point with that one.

[Morg]

saw this amusing item:

Las Vegas Strippers May Influence Global Nuclear-Waste Policy

By Hans Nichols
More Photos/Details

Jan. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Tori, a 37-year-old Las Vegas stripper, is an unlikely person to set national energy policy.

As a voter in Nevada's Jan. 19 Democratic presidential caucuses, that's just what she'll help to do when she chooses which candidate to support. The most important issue for her is the U.S. Department of Energy's plan to store spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain, an extinct volcano about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Senator Hillary Clinton of New York ``says she is against it,'' says Tori, who declines to give her last name, citing her day job working with burn victims at a dermatology clinic. ``But before she has my vote, I want to know if she means it.''

Yucca Mountain is a reminder that local issues in America's early caucus and primary states may play an outsized role in setting national -- and in Nevada's case, international -- policy. Iowa voters extracted presidential pledges on ethanol subsidies. Now most Nevada Democrats require candidates to oppose the Yucca Mountain plan -- as all three leading contenders have. Those Vegas vows may be hard to break, even as concerns about global warming have thawed some environmentalists' opposition to nuclear energy.

``There is this anti-nuclear movement here that has international impact far beyond Nevada,'' says David Damore, a University of Nevada-Las Vegas political science professor. ``Yucca is our ethanol. You have to come here and say you're against it, even if you were for it at one point.''

Splitting the Spoils

With Clinton, 60, and Illinois Senator Barack Obama, 46, splitting the spoils in Iowa and New Hampshire, the two are now fighting for Nevada's 33 delegates -- three more than New Hampshire -- and the media coverage that comes with being the front-runner. Party officials expect between 37,000 and 45,000 Democrats to caucus at 529 polling stations across the state, including nine on the Strip.

Democratic leaders gave Nevada a starring role in vetting the presidential contenders for a reason: Inserting it after Iowa and New Hampshire allows candidates to address Latino issues in a Western state that has a 20 percent Hispanic population -- and that Democrats lost in the 2004 election. Previously, Nevada's caucuses came later in the campaign schedule and were held at the county level, not in precincts.

Economic Plans

The contest also provides the candidates a timely opportunity to talk about their economic plans -- Nevada, one of the fastest-growing states in the U.S., is also among the hardest-hit by the housing recession -- and to discuss labor issues such as health-care benefits and wages.

Obama received the endorsement from the Culinary Workers Union, which represents some 60,000 employees in the hotels and casinos that drive Nevada's economy. That was a setback for former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, 54, who has focused on labor in his campaign.

The union says it wants to signal its strength to the hotels by defeating Clinton, who has the support of most of the state's Democratic establishment.

The showdown between Obama and Clinton ``really puts Nevada on the political map as it never has been before,'' says Jill Derby, the state's Democratic Party chairman. ``Whoever ends up in the White House is going to know something about the West, and that includes Yucca.''

Yucca Mountain, more of a ridge line than a peak, has been studied since 1978 as a place to house spent nuclear fuel from the nation's 104 operating reactors. The U.S. has invested $11 billion since 1983 on the site, which was supposed to start accepting waste in 1998.

Obstacles

Technical, legal and budget problems have delayed the opening until 2017 at the earliest, the Energy Department has said, though many obstacles remain, including stiff congressional opposition and getting required permits.

Nevada is ``sort of mixed'' on nuclear power, Derby says. ``Everyone thinks it's a cleaner source of energy, but the waste issue needs to be decided, and we don't want it here in our backyard.''

Concern about global warming has led some environmentalists like Patrick Moore, a founder of the international conservationist group Greenpeace, to reconsider nuclear power. Moore, now a paid spokesman for a nuclear industry-funded energy coalition, calls it ``clean, safe and affordable.''

`Psychological' Barrier

Finding a final resting place for the radioactive waste is ``necessary in the long run'' and more than just a ``psychological'' barrier for the nuclear industry, Moore says. ``It is basically an issue of liability.''

Obama, Clinton and Edwards all oppose using Yucca Mountain as a waste depository, though in 2000, Edwards voted the other way. Obama, whose state has the largest nuclear-energy network in the country and the eighth-largest in the world, has said nuclear power should remain an option for the U.S.

Clinton told an environmental magazine last August that she is ``agnostic'' about nuclear energy, while Edwards flatly opposes its expansion.

Back at the Las Vegas gentlemen's club where Tori works, her colleagues also aren't unanimous on the issue. Suzanne Nakata, a 27-year-old waitress who doesn't disrobe because she ``might run for office one day,'' says Nevadans need to reconsider their opposition to Yucca Mountain if they want to reduce America's greenhouse-gas emissions.

``Honestly, nuclear waste really does have to go somewhere,'' the registered Democrat says, ``but Nevadans haven't accepted that.''

[Matt]

Yay, let involve the courts in our election system even more :down:

[bored]

Well well well, it looks like the Clintons is up to their usual tricks. They file a LAW-SUIT to stop Rules, that hillary herself completely agreed to, when she was the huge front-runner; and thought, she would get the endorsement of the Culinary Union. Now behold, she seeking a court order to change the rules, because now, she says the rule isn't fair.




LMFAO! Why is this _____ running? She cares nothing about the people. Just her ambitions for Power and a chapter in the History Books. She is not a leader; yet, she has proving to be a Divider.

Anyway, for the next couple weeks, anything from the Nevada Caucus for both republicans and democrats, post it here. As you can see, things are already getting ugly.



Lol. Silly Hillary.

[SuperFerret]

saw this amusing item:

They want to store nuclear material in a volcano!? Are they insane?

[cookiva]

Yay, let involve the courts in our election system even more :down:

Well after 2000, everyone loved it so much that "they" decided to integrate them even more...

[Venom'sDad]

Y'know, there was a period of time where even though she was not my top choice for the candidacy I still would have voted for her in a general election if she got the nomination. However, after this, and the stupid race discussions that her campaign instigated I am seriously considering not supporting her if she does win. What gets me is how she pretends to be a uniter. Even against her own party she's using dirty tricks to win. What a joke.

Underline that! :up: She lack substantialness. People know it, but support her regardless.

This is why the country is decaying. The mindset of supporting a person of this quality is ridiculas. Proof is in the pudding..... and in that MSNBC report above.

[cookiva]

I really loved how they called Obama a "fairy tale", then started crying over how he was playing dirty.

[cookiva]

In the debate going on right now, Hilary said she would take away federal funding to universities if they dont have an active ROTC or a recruting station.

When asked about the fact that Harvard, Stanford, Columbia and Yale dont have either, she said there are ways around that are perfectly legal.

Dude.

[The Senator]

In the debate going on right now, Hilary said she would take away federal funding to universities if they dont have an active ROTC or a recruting station.

When asked about the fact that Harvard, Stanford, Columbia and Yale dont have either, she said there are ways around that are perfectly legal.

Dude.

Hmmm. Yeah, that's a tough call. I would say that this isn't really an important issue anyway; but then, what she said afterwards leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I really loved how they called Obama a "fairy tale", then started crying over how he was playing dirty.

Again, words taken out of context-- though Bill shouldn't have said that in the first place.

But I don't agree with this Nevada action.

She and her husband need to stop doing and saying stupid things.

[cookiva]

My deal with her is the hypocrisy. She wants to look tough, but when someone looks tough to her, she falls down and blames the system.


The reason i think the college deal is an issue is that both she and Obama followed by saying that we need more volunteer members of our armed troops. Where would we get more troops older than 18, younger than 30? Maybe colleges? Its just not the right question to place that type of idea....

[cookiva]

Debate over...

Edwards kicked ass. He put the others in their place.

[The Senator]

Debate over...

Edwards kicked ass. He put the others in their place.

Now would be the perfect time for him to surge.

Of course, the media won't pay attention to him, so either Clinton or Obama are still locked for the nomination.

[cookiva]

If the Nevada unions weren't so stupid, he would be surging. Why would they back Obama???

[The Senator]

If the Nevada unions weren't so stupid, he would be surging. Why would they back Obama???

Because he won Iowa, and they wanted to back a "winner" who wasn't Hillary.

Probably not the official answer, but I'm sure that's true none the less.

[Venom'sDad]

Piggyback.... that's all I can say about hillary clinton. Especially on specific question ask to Obama about minority education, housing market, again on, healthcare(she's altering her plan again), Environmental issues & alternative technologies, lobbyist, and what troop withdrawals actually entail. It was always, "Tim, I can do that too". Many of times after she was given an opportunity to answer a question first. It boggles the mind why people thinks she's the most intelligent woman on the face of the Earth. That speaks volumes about the rest of you women.

Edwards, imo, needs to withdraw... it's apparent Tim & Brian feel this is a contest between Obama and hillary. Edwards scores on a few points, but it was not many and hillary just piggyback all night.

I will say that it appear, to me at least, that Tim was in awe(in a reverence way) with Obama. That's just me.

[cookiva]

Because he won Iowa, and they wanted to back a "winner" who wasn't Hillary.

Probably not the official answer, but I'm sure that's true none the less.

No, you are right. It is the reason.

But if Edwards had the backing of the unions, he would be winning Nevada. Thats true, plain and simple...

[The Senator]

Piggyback.... that's all I can say about hillary clinton. Especially on specific question ask to Obama about minority education, housing market, again on, healthcare(she's altering her plan again), Environmental issues & alternative technologies, lobbyist, and what troop withdrawals actually entail. It was always, "Tim, I can do that too". Many of times after she was given an opportunity to answer a question first. It boggles the mind why people thinks she's the most intelligent woman on the face of the Earth. That speaks volumes about the rest of you women.

What a wonderful statement.:whatever:

[Excel]

In reguards to the debate...

Please; Barrack and the questiners put her in her place and made her sound stupid more than once.

She talks about how Bush used fear to get people to agree with him by talking about what terrorists MAY do if we dont listen to him and do what he says...and then goes onto suggest terrorist may test barrack because hes inexpirienced!

She did the exact same thing. She trying to make voters afraid that if Barrack was President, he coud get tested the same way the PM in England did; I wish Barrack had called her on it but he has more class and manners than that because frankly she would have looked extremely stupid.

[cookiva]

What a wonderful statement.:whatever:

Wow, I didnt even see that line. What the hell....?

[hippie_hunter]

No, you are right. It is the reason.

But if Edwards had the backing of the unions, he would be winning Nevada. Thats true, plain and simple...

Which makes the unions look even stupider because Edwards is the one who's running particularly for them.

It's idiocy like this which has made the union vote completely irrelevant. They'll just continue to vote mainstream Democrat instead of someone who is either better for the country or better for them.

[cookiva]

Which makes the unions look even stupider because Edwards is the one who's running particularly for them.

It's idiocy like this which has made the union vote completely irrelevant. They'll just continue to vote mainstream Democrat instead of someone who is either better for the country or better for them.

QFtmfT

[Chris B]

Now would be the perfect time for him to surge.

Of course, the media won't pay attention to him, so either Clinton or Obama are still locked for the nomination.

Two new polls show him in striking distance of Hillary and Obama so I think he could do well. I think he could come in second.

On a related note, I'm predicting Hillary and Romney victories in Nevada.

[Kel]

Teachers Sue to Block Hotel Workers’ Union Vote in Nevada Caucus
STEVE FRIESS

Published: January 12, 2008
LAS VEGAS — Nevada’s state teachers union and six Las Vegas area residents filed a lawsuit late Friday that could make it harder for many members of the state’s huge hotel workers union to vote in the hotly contested Jan. 19 Democratic caucus in Nevada.
(http://www.nytimes.com/politics)


The 13-page lawsuit in federal district court (http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20080112_nevada_lawsuit.pdf) here comes two days after the 60,000-member Culinary Workers Union Local 226 in Nevada endorsed Senator Barack Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per), a blow to Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Obama addressed the Culinary Union at their hall earlier Friday.
The lawsuit argues that the Nevada Democratic Party (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/d/democratic_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org)’s decision, decided late last year, to create at-large precincts inside nine Las Vegas resorts on caucus day violates the state’s election laws and creates a system in which voters at the at-large precincts can elect more delegates than voters at other precincts. The lawsuit employs a complex mathematical formula to show that voters at the other 1,754 precincts would have less influence with their votes.
The at-large precincts are being established because thousands of hotel workers cannot leave work to participate in the midday caucuses in their home precincts. The Nevada State Education Association has said it would not endorse any Democrat, but some of its top officials have endorsed Mrs. Clinton. The association’s deputy executive director, Debbie Cahill, for instance, was a founding member of Senator Clinton’s Nevada Women’s Leadership Council.
Nobody from the either union could be reached for comment late Friday. One plaintiff, Vicky Birkhead of North Las Vegas referred questions to the plaintiffs’ attorneys, who also could not be reached.
“This could shut down those precincts in the casinos and keep culinary members from voting,” said Jon Ralston, a political pundit with The Las Vegas Sun, who broke the story on his blog. Mr. Ralston said it is unclear whether there are ties between the lawsuit and the Clinton campaign but, he predicted, “Even if they’re Hillary supporters, the campaign’s going to say they had nothing to do with it.It is unclear when the court will hear the matter.


Questions to answer?


What campaign does this help?
Who's campaign, if any, is behind this lawsuit?

[StorminNorman]

Teachers Union's :down

I don't like this lawsuit.

If the judge sides with the NVEA, it helps Clinton.

[Kel]

But doesn't the Culinary Unions ability to vote where they work help Obama.....IMO, if they simply make them go back to the public caucus sites, doesn't that make more fair? Think about it....why is ok for the Culinary Union to vote where they work, but its not ok for Teachers to vote where they work?

[StorminNorman]

But doesn't the Culinary Unions ability to vote where they work help Obama.....IMO, if they simply make them go back to the public caucus sites, doesn't that make more fair? Think about it....why is ok for the Culinary Union to vote where they work, but its not ok for Teachers to vote where they work?

Most Culinary workers will have working hours at the time of the Caucuses. Most teachers will not.

[Matt]

I don't like this a bit. Being able to vote where you work is ridiculous to begin with. Here's an idea Nevada...instead of having these caucus' anyway, just have a regular primary. Then you will have polls open all day and chances are, people who want to vote...can.

[Kel]

Most Culinary workers will have working hours at the time of the Caucuses. Most teachers will not.


So what? you can say that about several different groups of people in the work place......and actually thats pretty much bull crap. If you are a coach, or a teacher involved in extracurricular activities which many are....then they may very well work into the evening...I know I do.

Bottomline is this, why is it "all of the sudden" the caucus format does not work in Nevada? The Culinary Union asked for this to up the vote for the one they have chose to endorse......lmao.......it is as obvious as what the Teacher's Union is doing.....SO, you simply go back to the public forums of the Caucus as they have been done in the past. It's not rocket science here......if you want to help them out, then you change the caucus time to a longer period, so that they can be included.....

Hell I have voting booths 100 feet from my classroom, yet because of the laws in place I can't vote there........so what do I do, I change my schedule alittle so that I can be a part of the voting process.....

[StorminNorman]

So what? you can say that about several different groups of people in the work place......and actually thats pretty much bull crap. If you are a coach, or a teacher involved in extracurricular activities which many are....then they may very well work into the evening...I know I do.

Bottomline is this, why is it "all of the sudden" the caucus format does not work in Nevada? The Culinary Union asked for this to up the vote for the one they have chose to endorse......lmao.......it is as obvious as what the Teacher's Union is doing.....SO, you simply go back to the public forums of the Caucus as they have been done in the past. It's not rocket science here......if you want to help them out, then you change the caucus time to a longer period, so that they can be included.....

Hell I have voting booths 100 feet from my classroom, yet because of the laws in place I can't vote there........so what do I do, I change my schedule alittle so that I can be a part of the voting process.....

The Hotel Industry is far more important - short-term economically - than Teachers for the state of Nevada. Thats why they get the perks. I don't like it - but thats why it happened. If the Teachers Union truly was outraged by this, they should of filed suit last year! If the Culinary Industry backed Hillary over Obama - there would of been no suit. When they thought this decision wouldn't hurt their candidate of choice - they had no problem with it. Now that it does - they are morally outraged.

Please.:whatever:

I agree with Matt, though - the best solution is to get rid of the Caucus and do a Primary. Its the obvious, rational choice.

[Kel]

LMAO, its not being done as a perk.....its being done to get their person as #1......if it were a perk, it would have been done...LOOOOOOONG before now. And yes, very true, a primary would work much better.

[StorminNorman]

LMAO, its not being done as a perk.....its being done to get their person as #1......if it were a perk, it would have been done...LOOOOOOONG before now. And yes, very true, a primary would work much better.

No - it was a perk. This decision of letting them vote near their workplace took place months before the Union endorsed Obama.

The 13-page lawsuit in federal district court (http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20080112_nevada_lawsuit.pdf) here comes two days after the 60,000-member Culinary Workers Union Local 226 in Nevada endorsed Senator Barack Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per), a blow to Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Obama addressed the Culinary Union at their hall earlier Friday.

The lawsuit argues that the Nevada Democratic Party (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/d/democratic_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org)’s decision, decided late last year, to create at-large precincts inside nine Las Vegas resorts on caucus day violates the state’s election laws and creates a system in which voters at the at-large precincts can elect more delegates than voters at other precincts. The lawsuit employs a complex mathematical formula to show that voters at the other 1,754 precincts would have less influence with their votes.

[Kel]

Norman, just because it was done before the announcement, does not mean they did not know who they were going to endorse. That vote was probably taken months ago, and then announced closer to the caucus itself.....if it were a perk, then why was it done now.....during a time where there is no clear front runner? Please......perk my ass.....yeah a perk to get Obama more votes.....its politics, thats how it works. LMAO, hell I don't care, I could go with Clinton or Obama at this point.....but that is not perk to help them out.....thats a perk to help Obama out. OF COURSE, they did that before they made their announcement of who they were endorsing, if they did it afterwards, then even the dumb people of Nevada could see its a push for Obama.

[StorminNorman]

Norman, just because it was done before the announcement, does not mean they did not know who they were going to endorse. That vote was probably taken months ago, and then announced closer to the caucus itself.....if it were a perk, then why was it done now.....during a time where there is no clear front runner? Please......perk my ass.....yeah a perk to get Obama more votes.....its politics, thats how it works. LMAO, hell I don't care, I could go with Clinton or Obama at this point.....but that is not perk to help them out.....thats a perk to help Obama out. OF COURSE, they did that before they made their announcement of who they were endorsing, if they did it afterwards, then even the dumb people of Nevada could see its a push for Obama.

But there was a clear front runner when the decision was made. This election was Hillary's. Period. No doubt in anyones mind. She was going to win everything - go the distance - etc. etc.

And then Iowa.

Chances are the Union would not of been in a position to support Obama at the time of this decision because the polls had Obama back as much as 37% in the polls. A Union wouldn't lend its name to a candidate that is considered by all to be slaughtered.

Now if this announcement was made after Iowa - you could raise the Conspiracy flags. Since that is not the case, you are hearing hoof prints and shouting Zebra!

If anything, this is clearly a political move by the NVEA.

[Kel]

Well, then we are going to have to agree to disagree......because I think its bull****ola...........it was done for Obama, IMO of course.....she is still ahead there, in the end.......its still all up in the air.


I think that ANYTHING that gets more of the vote out is a good thing, let me make that clear..............but it should be all around, not just this group because they are large in number.......allow EVERYONE more of an opportunity to caucus.....


It's politics, and it smells of politics.....hence my ****ola comment.

[StorminNorman]

Well, then we are going to have to agree to disagree......because I think its bull****ola...........it was done for Obama, IMO of course.....she is still ahead there, in the end.......its still all up in the air.


I think that ANYTHING that gets more of the vote out is a good thing, let me make that clear..............but it should be all around, not just this group because they are large in number.......allow EVERYONE more of an opportunity to caucus.....


It's politics, and it smells of politics.....hence my ****ola comment.

Oh it does have a certain smell. I just think you are attacking the wrong side. This lawsuit is ONLY in the courts because the Culinary Union backed Obama. It was the NVEA that is playing the political game.

[EdRyder]

We discussed this in another thread already and clearly this is a black eye on another dirty Clintonian tactic.
This was unanimously voted in committee last year, 4 of the 6 plaintiffs in the lawsuit were on that committee.
????

[EdRyder]

Judge Dismisses Nevada Caucus Challenge

LAS VEGAS -- A union with ties to Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton failed in court Thursday to prevent casino workers from caucusing at special precincts in Nevada.

The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge James Mahan was presumed to be a boost for Clinton rival Barack Obama in the Democratic presidential caucuses Saturday because he has been endorsed by the union representing many of the shift workers who will be able to use the precincts on the Las Vegas strip.

"State Democrats have a First Amendment right to association, to assemble and to set their own rules," Mahan said.

Nevada's Democratic Party approved creation of the precincts to make it easier for housekeepers, waitresses and bellhops to caucus during the day near work rather than have to do so in their neighborhoods.

The state teachers union, which has ties to Clinton, brought the suit against the special precincts shortly after local 226 of the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Obama for the Democratic nomination. The union is the largest in Nevada, with 60,000 members. The Clinton campaign said it was not involved in the suit.

The suit contended party rules allowing the precincts gave too much power to the casino workers and violated federal equal protection guarantees.

But the judge said, "We aren't voting here, we're caucusing. That's something that parties decide."

He said it is "up to the national party and the state party to promulgate these rules and enforce them."

The Democratic National Committee ratified the state party's rules in August.

The Obama campaign applauded the decision, and in a statement, criticized Clinton's operation.

"While the Clinton camp clearly believed the voices of workers should be silenced in service of their perceived political interest, they enjoyed a 25-point lead two months ago and have much of the party establishment in their camp. So, despite their inherent advantages we are pleased this should be a close and competitive contest Saturday," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

Opinion polls find Clinton, Obama and John Edwards in a statistical dead heat in the Nevada race. Each has made a vigorous bid for union support.

Opponents of the strip precincts said they could be more valuable in the delegate count than some sparsely populated counties, giving them too much clout. The Culinary Union said the suit was an attempt to disenfranchise its members. "Backers of Hillary Clinton are suing in court to take away our right to vote in the caucuses," a union flier said.

Under the rules, the nine at-large precincts will be open to any shift employee working within 2.5 miles of the strip. By one estimate, more than 700 of the roughly 10,000 delegates to the state party's presidential nominating convention could be selected at the casino caucuses, depending on turnout.

Obama has also collected the endorsement of the Nevada chapter of the Service Employees International Union. The close nature of the contest and the logistics of caucuses created an intense struggle for labor's support, given its ability to organize and mobilize.

[Kel]

Oh it does have a certain smell. I just think you are attacking the wrong side. This lawsuit is ONLY in the courts because the Culinary Union backed Obama. It was the NVEA that is playing the political game.


No actually I'm attacking both sides, that is just the side that we have been discussing......the entire situation is alot smelly......lol

[souvlaki]

I don't get how people are turning this into a debate against Barack Obama. Fair or unfair, this was voted on LAST YEAR. No one debated this until LAST WEEK. They had months to protest this decision, and they chose to wait until Barack Obama won the endorsement. It really doesn't matter whether or not this is fair or unfair for a certain group of people, what the debate comes down to is noone had a problem with this decision until Obama received the endorsement. Like others have said, we wouldn't even be having this discussion had Hillary received the endorsement, because chances are this lawsuit never would have come about.

[Kel]

Yep I just heard that on the news Ed, I figured that is how it would go since it had the blessing of the DNC....


I don't get how people are turning this into a debate against Barack Obama. Fair or unfair, this was voted on LAST YEAR. No one debated this until LAST WEEK. They had months to protest this decision, and they chose to wait until Barack Obama won the endorsement. It really doesn't matter whether or not this is fair or unfair for a certain group of people, what the debate comes down to is noone had a problem with this decision until Obama received the endorsement. Like others have said, we wouldn't even be having this discussion had Hillary received the endorsement, because chances are this lawsuit never would have come about.

Late last year, you do realize it is only January right?


And I agree it smells on both sides......but its politics, and that always has an odor.

[souvlaki]

Yep I just heard that on the news Ed, I figured that is how it would go since it had the blessing of the DNC....




Late last year, you do realize it is only January right?

Um... it was in August. That's four months that they had a chance to protest this decision. This wasn't even brought up until last week. If you cant see a connection between the endorsement and the lawsuit, I don't know what to tell you.

[Kel]

Um... it was in August. That's four months that they had a chance to protest this decision. This wasn't even brought up until last week. If you cant see a connection between the endorsement and the lawsuit, I don't know what to tell you.


Of course I see it.....HEEEELLLLLOOOO.......I've said there is politics being played on both sides.....that is kinda obvious.

I'm simply saying......to take the politics out of it, they should either

1. do this in several areas, not just the hotel population...
2. change to a primary....

#2, would be the best way, because the caucus form sucks.....*smiles*

[souvlaki]

And I agree it smells on both sides......but its politics, and that always has an odor.

Missed this. I do agree to a certain extant. I can understand the basis for the argument against the decision, but I am of the opinion that if they had a problem with it they should have made their case months ago. Doing it now just makes it look like bitter Clinton supporters trying to stop Obama supporters from voting. And really, at the end of the day, that really is what this lawsuit is all about. If Hillary won the endorsement do you really believe the teachers union would have filed this lawsuit?

[Kel]

Missed this. I do agree to a certain extant. I can understand the basis for the argument against the decision, but I am of the opinion that if they had a problem with it they should have made their case months ago. Doing it now just makes it look like bitter Clinton supporters trying to stop Obama supporters from voting. And really, at the end of the day, that really is what this lawsuit is all about. If Hillary won the endorsement do you really believe the teachers union would have filed this lawsuit?

If the teacher's union was supporting Obama, hell yeah they would have. Another reason why I am a member of a Teacher's Association that does not support any particular person.....they let us make our own decisions.

[souvlaki]

If the teacher's union was supporting Obama, hell yeah they would have.

Touche.

[souvlaki]

Of course I see it.....HEEEELLLLLOOOO.......I've said there is politics being played on both sides.....that is kinda obvious.

I'm simply saying......to take the politics out of it, they should either

1. do this in several areas, not just the hotel population...
2. change to a primary....

#2, would be the best way, because the caucus form sucks.....*smiles*

btw, in regards to the first option, I agree. But this is a debate they should have been having last August when something could have been done about it. There was no debate over this then so really it's a case of "you snooze, you lose". I dont have a problem with letting as many people possible participate in the caucus. What I do have a problem with is taking away the chances of certain people participating in voting because of their work schedules. All overruling this decision would do is not allow a certain group of people participate and that is wrong.

[Kel]

btw, in regards to the first option, I agree. But this is a debate they should have been having last August when something could have been done about it. There was no debate over this then so really it's a case of "you snooze, you lose". I dont have a problem with letting as many people possible participate in the caucus. What I do have a problem with is taking away the chances of certain people participating in voting because of their work schedules. All overruling this decision would do is not allow a certain group of people participate and that is wrong.

The Nevada Democratic Party can set its own rules, it had the blessing of the DNC.......wouldn't have mattered in August either.....I don't believe a judge would have overruled it.

[souvlaki]

The Nevada Democratic Party can set its own rules, it had the blessing of the DNC.......wouldn't have mattered in August either.....I don't believe a judge would have overruled it.

Probably not. My bitterness has less to do with the actual decision itself, but more so the timing. This just looks really bad for Hillary Clinton and for the teachers union regardless of who is in the right and who is in the wrong. They should have made their case months ago, or shut up about it. In the end all this lawsuit is going to do is backfire on Hillary Clinton whether she had a direct hand in this or not (which I believe she did, regardless of what her husband said).

[The Senator]

This party is dividing in two, and we will lose this election-- again.

I love how Obama supporters have all their cannons drawn on Hillary Clinton. Everything questionable which pops up in this campaign is automatically her fault.

Barrack Obama isn't on the ballot in Michigan-- must be a Clinton conspiracy!

Hillary won New Hampshire-- her and her racist supporters must have rigged the machines!

Some stupid lawsuit is filed which would prevent assumed Obama supporters from voting-- she must have filed it!

This is getting old. Actually, it's been old. All of this mudslinging on both sides, and for what?

If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination or wins Nevada, is that going to be incredibly horrible? Will Obama's supporters not vote because of it? Because at the rate this fight is going, people are starting to treat Hillary like a goddamn Republican. They're going to fight this until every last limb has been torn off and every drop of blood has been had.

So what happens if Hillary wins Nevada? Will it be because of a fluke, inaccurate polling, or some racist conspiracy? Because God knows Hillary won't win this because she earned it. Oh, no, she'll rig whatever victory she gets-- despite the fact that she's led in Nevada up until the past week, when she's still in a statistical dead heat with Obama.

Get a grip. If Obama wins, I won't make some sort of outlandish statement. If Obama wins, he will have earned it. And if he wins the nomination, then he will have earned that, too. If Hillary wins, I'd better hear the same damn praise on the other side, or else everyone who hopes the Democrats will win next year ought to face this stone cold truth: This party is crumbling. The Republicans won't kill our chances of winning next year; people within our own party will shoot our chances right in the foot. And personally, a President Huckabee who thinks gay sex is equivalent to beastiality, or a President McCain who wants to keep our soldiers in Iraq for a million years, or a President Romney who wants to keep taxes raised for the poor and lower middle classes, or a President Thompson who wants to sleep through the next terrorist attack, or a President Giuliani who wants to turn this country into a fascist authoritarian state, are all more frightening than the Democrat who wants to continue the cliched "status quo."

[souvlaki]

Barrack Obama isn't on the ballot in Michigan-- must be a Clinton conspiracy!

Who has made this claim? Everyone knows why Obama wasn't on the ballot, there is nothing suspicious about this.

[souvlaki]

This party is dividing in two, and we will lose this election-- again.

Also, to be fair, the same can be said about the Republican party. I agree that this fighting within the party lines is getting old, but right now I would say the Republican party is in far worse shape. You have social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and moderate conservatives all fighting amongst eachother. If Hillary were to get the nomination, despite the hate being spewed toward her currently I still think the Democratic party will rally behind her. I don't think the same can be said for any of the Republican candidates. Really, the problem isn't the Democratic Party, or the GOP, but with politicians in general.

[Venom'sDad]

Been checking the feeds.... imo, Edwards is destroying himself. He will no doubt stay in the race until at least after Super Tuesday, if not til the Convention. He is trying to stay relevant, for a delegate power play. The Demo Party is not falling apart like the pundits are saying. I do think some fractions of the party will refuse to support the eventual nominee in the General Election. You all know who I think that will be.

As far as the Repubs are concern.... the party is beginning to collapse if the continue down this road of looking for a Reagan Clone. That candidate does not exist. Sadly, the Repubs will only unite for RudyG and that is only when he run against hillary. They will not unite behind any of the other candidates, even McCain should he win the nomination. Regardless of the Demos nominee. The Repubs are trying to find an ideology that does not FULLY exist anymore; and it is recking the party.

[Matt]

Y'know, if the Democrats keep having all this in-fighting and squabbling (especially Obama and Hillary), they are both going to end up dragging their names through the mud so much and getting lower and lower that people will vote Republican in November out of frustration. And while it may not be him in this certain case, he has been just as guilty as Hillary of these sly little political tricks. People are eventually going to get frustrated with him saying one thing ("I'm fresh, I'm new, I'm an outsider, etc") while doing another thing (mudslinging with Hillary down in the trenches). I firmly believe the reason Hillary is getting tremendous backlash is because she is seen as a typical, Washington insider politican. If Obama keeps sinking to her level, the independents he depends on will become exasperated and just quit voting.

[The Senator]

Who has made this claim? Everyone knows why Obama wasn't on the ballot, there is nothing suspicious about this.

It happened in the "Hillary wins Michigan" thread. I'm not naming names, but they're there if you want to find the exact post:


I Haven't paid too much attention to the Demacrat Primaries, but why did they boycott Michigan?

I think it was because of Hillary and not all canidates were going to be on the ballot.

So obviously, some people didn't know that, and scapegoated her instead of researching the issue and coming up with the correct answer.

[The Senator]

Also, to be fair, the same can be said about the Republican party. I agree that this fighting within the party lines is getting old, but right now I would say the Republican party is in far worse shape. You have social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and moderate conservatives all fighting amongst eachother. If Hillary were to get the nomination, despite the hate being spewed toward her currently I still think the Democratic party will rally behind her. I don't think the same can be said for any of the Republican candidates. Really, the problem isn't the Democratic Party, or the GOP, but with politicians in general.

Funny thing is, the Republicans are ALWAYS better at organizing themselves around their candidates. Their get out the vote effort is huge in comparison to the Democrats, and their voters care more about their values than the Democratic constituency.

You don't even have to look at Presidential elections as an indicator of this. Look at years in centrist states where gay marriage amendments were on the ballot. They organized and overwhelmingly voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The only exception to this thus far has been Arizona, which barely rejected such an amendment.

I have a feeling that Republicans will consider this more of a do or die election than the Democrats. The Democrats will act incredibly cocky throughout, assuming that the Republicans will fail miserably on the campaign trail, not expecting them to win at all. But as long as Rudy isn't the nominee, I would bet money that they will set aside differences over their candidate's record and support him throughout the election season.

On our side... we're bickering over how "liberal" a candidate is, and how much "change" he or she will install as president. Both of them will bring change to the Presidency; they will be near polar-opposites of Bush, they will reject many of his policies... and yet, because Hillary voted for the war in Iraq and continues to defend aspects of her decision, and because she allows lobbyists to donate to her campaign, and because she discusses her experience on the trail, she is perceived as the bad guy. I know Obama supporters who would vote for Huckabee, who is the exact opposite of Obama in almost every single way, instead of Clinton, which I find distressing.

[Gilpesh]

So obviously, some people didn't know that, and scapegoated her instead of researching the issue and coming up with the correct answer.

Too be fair to me, who did change my mind after someone explained it, Hillary has been far and above the dirtest campaigner in this election. She's blasted Obama on being weak on crime... because he held the same position she did. She said that Obama might not stand up for a woman's right to choose... when that group came out and said he is 100% in line with their abortion policies.

But this little thing about the lawsuit stinks of Hillary... who was expected to get the backing of the union.

[Venom'sDad]

Just found this on CNN (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/17/romney-and-obama-2-for-2-with-major-nevada-papers/).

[StorminNorman]

As far as the Repubs are concern.... the party is beginning to collapse if the continue down this road of looking for a Reagan Clone. That candidate does not exist. Sadly, the Repubs will only unite for RudyG and that is only when he run against hillary. They will not unite behind any of the other candidates, even McCain should he win the nomination. Regardless of the Demos nominee. The Repubs are trying to find an ideology that does not FULLY exist anymore; and it is recking the party.

This assessment of the Republican party is incredibly inaccurate, unless this post was suppose to be made... several months ago.

Romney and McCain could both be National Supported Candidates. Fred Thompson to should hell freeze.

[The Senator]

Too be fair to me, who did change my mind after someone explained it, Hillary has been far and above the dirtest campaigner in this election. She's blasted Obama on being weak on crime... because he held the same position she did. She said that Obama might not stand up for a woman's right to choose... when that group came out and said he is 100% in line with their abortion policies.

Obama's been pretty dirty, too. There's that whole "I won't take money from lobbyists" spat he got into with her... in which he may or may not have taken money from lobbyists, but-- gasp-- he made a pharmaceutical lobbyist the head of his New Hampshire campaign operations. Then there's that tricky bill he co-sponsored, which made it illegal for lobbyists to pay for dinner or lunch for senators... however, they could still pay for that meal, as long as it was conducted standing up. So he wasn't the great lobbyist crusader he and his supporters make him out to be. If you're interested in the facts, you can check out the Obama thread, where I posted the direct articles from various sources of the issue.

Then Obama not only criticized Clinton's vote in favor of invading Iraq, but he criticized her for voting to continue war funding and not voting to withdraw troops sooner. Of course, what Barrack Obama's supporters don't know is that his Iraq war record in the Senate is almost identical to Hillary Clinton's. Someone made this nifty chart, and if you are as fluent in Senate bill-speak as I am, you'll see the hypocrisy in black and white:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/files/pdf/20080115_votes.pdf

(and yes, it's from Hillary's campaign site; but, you can also look up each individual bill number at Thomas.Loc.Gov to see both Senators' voting records)

Plus, here are some articles to back up the story:



In 2004, Sen. Obama said he was willing to support more troops in Iraq, said withdrawal from Iraq would be 'a slap in the face' to the troops fighting there." "Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama said Saturday he would be willing to send more soldiers to Iraq if it is part of a strategy that the president and military leaders believe will stabilize the country…'A quick withdrawal would add to the chaos there and make it 'an extraordinary hotbed of terrorist activity,' [Obama] said. It would also damage America's international prestige and amount to 'a slap in the face' to the troops fighting there, he said." [Christopher Wills, "Obama Willing To Support More Troops In Iraq," The Associated Press, 9/19/04]

In 2005, Sen. Obama said that 'U.S. forces are still a part of the solution.'" "I believe that U.S. forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq….First and foremost, after the December 15 elections and during the course of next year, we need to focus our attention on how reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq. Notice that I say 'reduce,' and not 'fully withdraw.'" [Obama speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, 11/22/05]

In 2006, Sen. Obama opposed Sen. Kerry's amendment to withdraw troops, saying he opposed 'a precipitous withdrawal of troops.' Sen. Obama voted against an amendment by Senator Kerry requiring the president to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq in 2006 and have complete withdrawal by July 1, 2007. "But having visited Iraq, I am also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this administration. It could compound them… A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility" [2006 Vote # 181, S2766, 6/22/06; Obama Remarks, Congressional Record, 06/21/06]

Recently, at the Nevada debate, he called for removing all that waste from Yucca Mountain, and criticized Senator Clinton for not doing anything about it. Well, isn't it funny that his top donor lobbied to keep and store nuclear waste there?

One of Sen. Obama's biggest donors is the energy giant Exelon:

Exelon is the sixth largest donor to Sen. Obama's presidential campaign and the fourth largest career donor to Obama’s federal campaigns. Exelon employees have donated over $269,100 to his federal campaigns and over $194,750 in 2008. [opensecrets.org, 2008, 2004-2008]

Exelon's CEO is a key advocate for storing nuclear waste at Yucca:

Exelon CEO John Rowe calls Yucca mountain project ‘linchpin’ to solving waste problem and building new plants. "So what does Exelon Chief Executive Officer John Rowe want? Fortune magazine, in a May 15, 2006, article titled 'Meet Mr. Nuke,' details Rowe's call to solve the waste problem before additional nuclear power plants are built. "We have to be able to look the public in the eye and say, 'If we build a plant, here's where the waste will go,' " Rowe told Fortune. The Yucca Mountain Project is the 'linchpin' to solving the waste problem and building new plants.”[Las Vegas Review Journal, 5/15/07]

Exelon has spent millions lobbying to open up Yucca mountain

In 2002, Exelon spent $2,172,000 dollars on lobbying the federal government on issues including 'Yucca Mountain Project Management' [sopr.senate.gov, mid-year; year-end]

In 2003, Exelon spent $2,864,400 dollars on lobbying the federal government on issues including 'Yucca Mountain Project Management' [sopr.senate.gov, mid-year; year-end]

In 2004, Exelon spent over $1,000,000 dollars on lobbying the federal government on issues including 'Yucca Mountain Project Management' [sopr.senate.gov, mid-year; year-end]

In 2005, Exelon spent $1,815,000 dollars on lobbying the federal government on issues including ‘the Department of Energy’s Yucca Mountain Project.’ [sopr.senate.gov, mid-year, year-end]

In 2006, Exelon spent $1,329,014 dollars on lobbying the federal government on issues including ‘the Department of Energy’s Yucca Mountain Project.’ [sopr.senate.gov, mid-year, year-end]

In 2007, Exelon spent $1,732,321 dollars on lobbying the federal government on issues including the ‘Yucca Mountain National Interest…’ [sopr.senate.gov, mid-year]


So, Obama is quite the negative campaigner himself. But because he has a cute face, and a hot, booming voice and a message every liberal can float high on, his errors and attacks get overlooked, while Hillary's "attacks" are criticized left and right, over and over again. This really a shows a double-standard, I think.

[The Senator]

Been checking the feeds.... imo, Edwards is destroying himself. He will no doubt stay in the race until at least after Super Tuesday, if not til the Convention. He is trying to stay relevant, for a delegate power play. The Demo Party is not falling apart like the pundits are saying. I do think some fractions of the party will refuse to support the eventual nominee in the General Election. You all know who I think that will be.

As far as the Repubs are concern.... the party is beginning to collapse if the continue down this road of looking for a Reagan Clone. That candidate does not exist. Sadly, the Repubs will only unite for RudyG and that is only when he run against hillary. They will not unite behind any of the other candidates, even McCain should he win the nomination. Regardless of the Demos nominee. The Repubs are trying to find an ideology that does not FULLY exist anymore; and it is recking the party.

Seriously, like Norman said, this is completely false. Giuliani is polling in single-digits in some nationwide polls. He has yet to finish in fifth place in the early states, let alone first, and these big losses will probably hurt him in the big states he had hoped to win at a later date. Recent polls show McCain winning not only Florida, but Pennsylvania and California-- two huge, delegate-rich states Rudy had banked on winning. He's almost neck and neck with McCain in New York-- his homestate. If he can't win there, how can he be expected to win the whole thing?

Also, the party has a history of uniting behind people they have been divided over, such as Ronald Reagan (who was largely rejected in 1976 before winning the nod in 1980 after quite the uphill battle), and Bob Dole (who had been trashed throughout every one of his Presidential campaigns, though he was most prominently attacked in 1996-- which was the year he won his party's nomination and had pretty good Republican voter turnout, despite his loss).

If McCain becomes the nominee, the party will unite behind him, not only because they want to win the election, but because they desperately need to. They are also better at organizing and supporting a candidate, as long as they have similar values which mirror those of the Republican Party. If Romney is the nominee, they'll support him, and if Huckabee is the nominee, they'll support him, too.

Finally, your assessment that they'll only select Rudy because he beats Hillary Clinton is false. Hillary Clinton beats Rudy in several Republican states by upwards of ten points. He's not a lock for the win by any means, and I have a feeling that's a big part of the reason as to why Republicans aren't uniting behind him anymore.

[Gilpesh]

Obama's been pretty dirty, too. There's that whole "I won't take money from lobbyists" spat he got into with her... in which he may or may not have taken money from lobbyists, but-- gasp-- he made a pharmaceutical lobbyist the head of his New Hampshire campaign operations. Then there's that tricky bill he co-sponsored, which made it illegal for lobbyists to pay for dinner or lunch for senators... however, they could still pay for that meal, as long as it was conducted standing up. So he wasn't the great lobbyist crusader he and his supporters make him out to be. If you're interested in the facts, you can check out the Obama thread, where I posted the direct articles from various sources of the issue.

I'll take a look.

Then Obama not only criticized Clinton's vote in favor of invading Iraq, but he criticized her for voting to continue war funding and not voting to withdraw troops sooner. Of course, what Barrack Obama's supporters don't know is that his Iraq war record in the Senate is almost identical to Hillary Clinton's. Someone made this nifty chart, and if you are as fluent in Senate bill-speak as I am, you'll see the hypocrisy in black and white:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/files/pdf/20080115_votes.pdf

(and yes, it's from Hillary's campaign site; but, you can also look up each individual bill number at Thomas.Loc.Gov to see both Senators' voting records).

Um... Hillary also said the exact same thing about Obama and supporting the war. Saw the ad on television during dinner a week or two ago.

Recently, at the Nevada debate, he called for removing all that waste from Yucca Mountain, and criticized Senator Clinton for not doing anything about it. Well, isn't it funny that his top donor lobbied to keep and store nuclear waste there?

So... your problem is that he was against storing the waste there and a lobbyist that pays him is for it? Wouldn't that mean he didn't let a lobbyist buy his opinion?

And maybe if people were more educated about the storing of that waste there... this wouldn't be an issue. Cause if Penn and Teller can cover it in half an hour, it really isn't.

So, Obama is quite the negative campaigner himself. But because he has a cute face, and a hot, booming voice and a message every liberal can float high on, his errors and attacks get overlooked, while Hillary's "attacks" are criticized left and right, over and over again. This really a shows a double-standard, I think.

Hillary is blantantly lying about experience and attacking Obama on his inexperience... I think she wins the dirtest title.

And if someone wants to say that it is because she is a woman... who else is complaining about her being able to cry a little and pull support out of thin air. Of course the crying wasn't too much of a boost, the polling whoopsy was most of it.

[Venom'sDad]

This assessment of the Republican party is incredibly inaccurate, unless this post was suppose to be made... several months ago.

Romney and McCain could both be National Supported Candidates.

I'm sorry dude, but that is a myth. Many Conservatives are very unhappy with McCain's numerous positions against the Bush Whitehouse. Everyone don't hate Bush like Demos/Libs and some Mods and Repubs, particular Conservatives which is his strogest supporters still. They have not forgotten McCain and his Moderate attitude and partnership with high ranking Democrats.

Romney is gain some traction, but not enough to unite a party who feels he can not compete with hillary. They do believe he waffles, and will buckle against a brute like hillary, who will do anything it takes, to rip their(bill & hill) opponent apart and win the WhiteHouse.


On a side note:

Here is the complete uneditted interview (http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4146207) with Bill. He is trying to imply that those voters vote will came five times what it is worth. He keeps hammering on that implication. Also, trying to portray the reporter position when he is doing his job, asking a legitiment question. The reporter took no position. He tried to distance the Clinton campaign from the lawsuit filed by the Teachers Union. We know better. However, where was the Union 10 months ago and ever since.

He also call the State Democratic Party "Stupid" twice, by implying they didn't know what they were doing or understood....further casting stone at their own Party, if they do get in line and play ball.... which they did when it was assume hillary would get the endorsement and waltz to the nomination. There is so much here, he said he is not concern about the house mortgage market but that voters vote count 5 times... which they don't.

[StorminNorman]

I'm sorry dude, but that is a myth. Many Conservatives are very unhappy with McCain's numerous positions against the Bush Whitehouse. Everyone don't hate Bush like Demos/Libs and some Mods and Repubs, particular Conservatives which is his strogest supporters still. They have not forgotten McCain and his Moderate attitude and partnership with high ranking Democrats.

This is, of course, inarguable. But that doesn't mean the Republicans wouldn't unite behind him against a common, more serious enemy: Hillary or Obama.

For you to make the argument that the Conservatives wont support McCain, but would Rudy - a man far more liberal than the Senator - is a bit curious. Especially when McCain's support dwarfs Rudy's.

Romney is gain some traction, but not enough to unite a party who feels he can not compete with hillary. They do believe he waffles, and will buckle against a brute like hillary, who will do anything it takes, to rip their(bill & hill) opponent apart and win the WhiteHouse.

The party wont be united until after the argument. I have seen most reflect the sentiment that he is the GOP's best candidate against the GOP. Romney's reputation is not one of a weak candidate - he is the one that was viewed upon as a bully in Iowa. He is a candidate that will take it to Hillary and Obama.

[The Senator]

I'm sorry dude, but that is a myth. Many Conservatives are very unhappy with McCain's numerous positions against the Bush Whitehouse. Everyone don't hate Bush like Demos/Libs and some Mods and Repubs, particular Conservatives which is his strogest supporters still. They have not forgotten McCain and his Moderate attitude and partnership with high ranking Democrats.

Romney is gain some traction, but not enough to unite a party who feels he can not compete with hillary. They do believe he waffles, and will buckle against a brute like hillary, who will do anything it takes, to rip their(bill & hill) opponent apart and win the WhiteHouse.


You know nothing of politics.

History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes.

You ought to study the history of the modern Republican part from 1960-present. You'll understand that, even though a candidate is disliked by a good percentage of the Republican Party for whatever reasons, if that candidate received the nomination, he is supported by a vast majority of the party none the less. Again, use Reagan and Dole as case studies.

[The Senator]

Um... Hillary also said the exact same thing about Obama and supporting the war. Saw the ad on television during dinner a week or two ago.

If you're being attacked left and right by your opponent over your war record, then what are you left to do? She had to defend herself, and rightfully so, considering Obama's attacks were held to the same double-standard he's based his campaign on.

So... your problem is that he was against storing the waste there and a lobbyist that pays him is for it? Wouldn't that mean he didn't let a lobbyist buy his opinion?

No, my problem is that he attacked Senator Clinton for two things: Taking large donations from lobbyists and corporations, and for not supporting action against waste storage at Yucca Mountain. Not only did Obama himself not take any action against Yucca mountain, but he accepted donations from a man whose job it was to make sure the waste storage continued there.

Hypocrisy all around.

And maybe if people were more educated about the storing of that waste there... this wouldn't be an issue. Cause if Penn and Teller can cover it in half an hour, it really isn't.

Exactly. But the American people outside of Nevada aren't educated in this, so they are forced to form an opinion based on heresay from other candidates. When you have handsome people talking about an issue, they seem to get their point across better than all those objective, scholarly articles and government releases which have covered the issue for decades.


Hillary is blantantly lying about experience and attacking Obama on his inexperience... I think she wins the dirtest title.

No, Obama is not only trying to butter up his inexperience into an impressive resume, but he's lying about his Senate career in the process. He's lied about being consistently against the war in Iraq, and he's wrongfully attacked Hillary Clinton for supporting the same legislation he voted in favor of. Certainly, he didn't vote to authorize the war in Iraq, and he was an early vocal opponent; but why did he vote in favor of funding and appropriations measures? He was overwhelmingly popular in his homestate, so it wouldn't have affected his election chances-- could it be because he was positioning himself to run for president, and on the off chance he did run and get the nomination, he might look like a wuss on defense and a troop hater for voting against them? Of course, he can attack Hillary for political positioning, because you know, she didn't vote the right way. How hypocritical.

And there's far more dirt, which I don't feel like typing again... but a good point is, he fired the first shot about her being a corporate hag; she fired the second shot over his inexperience.

They're both guilty of slinging the mud. But let he who is without sin cast the first stone...

And if someone wants to say that it is because she is a woman... who else is complaining about her being able to cry a little and pull support out of thin air. Of course the crying wasn't too much of a boost, the polling whoopsy was most of it.

Well, I don't think her sex has anything to do with it, but of course, people just enjoy making it something bigger than it should be... kind of like her opponent's race.

[Gilpesh]

Ugh... I didn't really want to defend Obama. I was just trying to say that it didn't seem below Hillary to 'do' this lawsuit. That's why I jumped to conclusions on the Michigan thing which I said I was wrong on and which actually hurt Hillary instead of helping in a hilarious twist of fate.

Plus this whole lawsuit thing seems like bullcrap brought out because when it was agreed to everyone assumed Hillary was winning that union's vote and now that the canidate has changed (doesn't matter who, just that it has) suddenly the tune is different and this arrangement is unfair.

[The Senator]

It's okay. I debate issues until the topic is dead, and that's because I hate the hypocrisy and negative attacks from each candidate on both sides. It's disgusting and unnecessary, and most of the time, it's a bunch of exaggerated lies and misconceptions which explode into something it shouldn't be.

At first, it was bickering between Edwards and Clinton. Then Obama joined in, and it became a three-way attack machine; then Edwards stopped after polls showed his approach was failing, so it was just between Obama and Clinton.

Clinton is at fault to some extent, Obama is too. But both campaigns have a huge double standard, and it isn't right for one campaign to lambaste another over stupid crap like lobbyists and voting for war funding. Half of my non-politically active friends don't realize that both Obama and Hillary are Democrats, which I find distressing.

[Gilpesh]

Heck, at least you haven't had a friend tell you they were voting for Hillary because "things were pretty good with Bill".

[The Senator]

Heck, at least you haven't had a friend tell you they were voting for Hillary because "things were pretty good with Bill".

They were pretty good with Bill, aside from the oral sex bit and the Newt Gingrich Wave of Hypocrisy which ruined Congress in the late 1990s.

Not a reason to vote for her, though, even though I'm sure he'll play an active role in her administration, whether it is as a "roaming ambassador" or just pre-sleep chatter... assuming they sleep in the same bed, with the same people.

[Gilpesh]

Definitely not a reason to vote for her... cause she had NOTHING to do with it.

[The Senator]

Definitely not a reason to vote for her... cause she had NOTHING to do with it.

But her husband did... and he'd be back in the White House.

Many view a Hillary presidency as a defacto third term for Bill.

[Gilpesh]

'Back' in the White House. I don't think husband of the president has a lot to do with how the country goes... especially when Hillary is running on her 'stand-alone woman' image.

[StorminNorman]

But her husband did... and he'd be back in the White House.

Many view a Hillary presidency as a defacto third term for Bill.
Which is foolish and almost hurts the woman's movement as much as Hillary crying on the campaign trail.

[The Senator]

'Back' in the White House. I don't think husband of the president has a lot to do with how the country goes... especially when Hillary is running on her 'stand-alone woman' image.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Bill try to wriggle his way into her Presidency, every chance he gets.

[Gilpesh]

I wouldn't be surprised to see Bill try to wriggle his way into her Presidency, every chance he gets.

That would mean there is a god and he hears my prayers.

:dry:

[hippie_hunter]

McCain's support dwarfs McCain.

Hillary and Clinton.

:huh:

[StorminNorman]

I was tired damn it.

[hippie_hunter]

I'm sorry dude, but that is a myth. Many Conservatives are very unhappy with McCain's numerous positions against the Bush Whitehouse. Everyone don't hate Bush like Demos/Libs and some Mods and Repubs, particular Conservatives which is his strogest supporters still. They have not forgotten McCain and his Moderate attitude and partnership with high ranking Democrats.

Romney is gain some traction, but not enough to unite a party who feels he can not compete with hillary. They do believe he waffles, and will buckle against a brute like hillary, who will do anything it takes, to rip their(bill & hill) opponent apart and win the WhiteHouse.

StorminNorman is far more knowledgable in politics than you are. The fact that you act like you're more knowledgeable in this subject than him, I find insulting.

Republicans would be far more willing to unite behind McCain than Giuliani. Despite his positions on certain things, the man is actually a rather moderate conservative. He's supports Second Amendment rights. He's anti-abortion. Opposes socialized health care. He's a fiscal conservative. He's a Christian despite not being an evangellical.

His willingness to work with Democrats and other views upon the enviroment, detaining terrorists, etc. is what will make McCain far more attractive to the more lucrative independent/moderate voters than Huckabee, Thompson, and other Republican candidates.

[hippie_hunter]

I was tired damn it.

So are McCain and Clinton's campaigns in such great shape that they started to compete with themselves :oldrazz:

[StorminNorman]

So are McCain and Clinton's campaigns in such great shape that they started to compete with themselves :oldrazz:

I wish McCain's campaign would compete with itself :( Would help my StorminMorman.

[hippie_hunter]

I wish McCain's campaign would compete with itself :( Would help my StorminMorman.

It would be like a segment of Stephen Colbert's Formidable Opponent (http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=72149&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=%2Fmotherload%2Findex.jhtml%3Fml_vid eo%3D72149&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true) :(

[souvlaki]

I wouldn't be surprised to see Bill try to wriggle his way into her Presidency, every chance he gets.

This is the most frustrating thing for me. I really don't care for her much as a politician or a person, but I know if I end up voting for her next November I'll be doing it because in a roundabout way I'll be voting for her husband, and so will half the nation. That's a really crappy reason to vote someone into the White House. If she was not Mrs. Clinton she would never have made it as far as she has in the primary.

[Venom'sDad]

This is, of course, inarguable. But that doesn't mean the Republicans wouldn't unite behind him against a common, more serious enemy: Hillary or Obama.

For you to make the argument that the Conservatives wont support McCain, but would Rudy - a man far more liberal than the Senator - is a bit curious. Especially when McCain's support dwarfs Rudy's.

Repubs will not unite behind McCain against any Demo candidate, including a more serious enemy hillary, that is fact. Conservatives do not like McCain. They have never supported him and never will. They didn't in 96 nor 00 and wont again in 08. He will not come close to winning the GOP nomination.... they don't like him.

As far as RudyG is concern, most of the main issues that Repubs/Cons are vehemently about, they support and feel he is the strongest. They also believe that he is the only candidate that beats hillary. As strange as it may sound to you, RudyG & McCain are Moderates just like Bush. This is where the Party is at and has been since the mid-term elections in 86. How on fiscal and defense issues, the party view the two equal on defense, but RudyG more fiscal conservative. That is the fact. Smaller issue such as abortions and gay rights is that much a factor to Cons, as the media portrays it. It is to the Evang/far Rightwing of the party, not to the general Cons.



The party wont be united until after the argument. I have seen most reflect the sentiment that he is the GOP's best candidate against the GOP. Romney's reputation is not one of a weak candidate - he is the one that was viewed upon as a bully in Iowa. He is a candidate that will take it to Hillary and Obama.

Exactly, you made my point, so whats the beef here. BTW, I never said he's weak, so I know not why you imply I'm saying that. Let me be clear, the party believes he WAFFLES. I have said it before, and I will say it again, I would not be surprise if he's the VP candidate.

[Kel]

Both parties will not have anything set until after Super Tuesday....who wins in Florida will have the greatest push on Super Tuesday and all the movement in Iowa and New Hampshire will be totally forgotten....

[The Senator]

Repubs will not unite behind McCain against any Demo candidate, including a more serious enemy hillary, that is fact. Conservatives do not like McCain. They have never supported him and never will. They didn't in 96 nor 00 and wont again in 08. He will not come close to winning the GOP nomination.... they don't like him.

As far as RudyG is concern, most of the main issues that Repubs/Cons are vehemently about, they support and feel he is the strongest. They also believe that he is the only candidate that beats hillary. As strange as it may sound to you, RudyG & McCain are Moderates just like Bush. This is where the Party is at and has been since the mid-term elections in 86. How on fiscal and defense issues, the party view the two equal on defense, but RudyG more fiscal conservative. That is the fact. Smaller issue such as abortions and gay rights is that much a factor to Cons, as the media portrays it. It is to the Evang/far Rightwing of the party, not to the general Cons.





Exactly, you made my point, so whats the beef here. BTW, I never said he's weak, so I know not why you imply I'm saying that. Let me be clear, the party believes he WAFFLES. I have said it before, and I will say it again, I would not be surprise if he's the VP candidate.

I must have been put on ignore, since I refuted your outlandish statements in my above posts. Yet you keep on making them, so obviously you're not processing anything which I said.

Which, of course, is stupid, because I not only research these kinds of things in college, but it's also been the epicenter of three jobs I've held-- volunteered and paid-- over the past year and a half.

Go figure.

[StorminNorman]

Repubs will not unite behind McCain against any Demo candidate, including a more serious enemy hillary, that is fact. Conservatives do not like McCain. They have never supported him and never will. They didn't in 96 nor 00 and wont again in 08. He will not come close to winning the GOP nomination.... they don't like him.

McCain is leading the National Polls for the GOP. He is currently winning most state polls. He is the favorite for the nomination currently. Now for the sake of my candidate Romney - I hope you are right, I hope he will fall apart. However the likely hood is not good and for you to simply dismiss the possibility of him winning this nomination one would have to ignore everything that has happened the last few weeks as well as what can be predicted to happen in the next month.

As far as RudyG is concern, most of the main issues that Repubs/Cons are vehemently about, they support and feel he is the strongest. They also believe that he is the only candidate that beats hillary. As strange as it may sound to you, RudyG & McCain are Moderates just like Bush. This is where the Party is at and has been since the mid-term elections in 86. How on fiscal and defense issues, the party view the two equal on defense, but RudyG more fiscal conservative. That is the fact. Smaller issue such as abortions and gay rights is that much a factor to Cons, as the media portrays it. It is to the Evang/far Rightwing of the rep party, not to the general Cons.

McCain has similar support to Guilliani when it comes to national security.

No one believes he is the only candidate that can beat Hillary. Period. That is an incorrect assessment.

You are completely ignoring Romney who has the majority of the backing of those that are concerned about the economy.

But, frankly, Rudy's not winning this nomination. McCain is leading California (Romney is second), McCain is leading in Florida (Romney is second in many polls), McCain is leading New Jersey, McCain is leading Pennsylvania. Rudy's gone.

Exactly, you made my point, so whats the beef here. BTW, I never said he's weak, so I know not why you imply I'm saying that. Let me be clear, the party believes he WAFFLES. I have said it before, and I will say it again, I would not be surprise if he's the VP candidate.

The Party will unite over any candidate chosen. Right now it looks like it will be Romney or McCain. If the Democrats nominate Hillary though - it doesn't matter who the GOP nominates - they will win.

[Kel]

What a wonderful statement.:whatever:



Don't worry about it jman....the "rest of us women" ignore ignorance like that pretty well.....we have to do it quite often....:cwink:

[The Senator]

Don't worry about it jman....the "rest of us women" ignore ignorance like that pretty well.....we have to do it quite often....:cwink:

Well, you know, because Hillary's a woman, all women support her and act like her.

[Kel]

Well, you know, because Hillary's a woman, all women support her and act like her.


Oooooooh, so I guess, even though I haven't made my decision because there is alot of debate to be had before November.........then out of sheer womanhood, I will be supporting Hillary..........NOW I know why VD called me close-minded now........my mind is already made up........of course.:sleepy:

[The Senator]

Oooooooh, so I guess, even though I haven't made my decision because there is alot of debate to be had before November.........then out of sheer womanhood, I will be supporting Hillary..........NOW I know why VD called me close-minded now........my mind is already made up........of course.:sleepy:

Yes. I mean, aren't women all connected to Hillary through some sort of estrogen-sensing chip or something? Whatever she says, you have to do, so if she says 'vote for me,' you're obligated. Even Condi can't get out of this one.

On a side note, you wrote VD, and I thought you were talking about the STD:o

[Kel]

Yes. I mean, aren't women all connected to Hillary through some sort of estrogen-sensing chip or something? Whatever she says, you have to do, so if she says 'vote for me,' you're obligated. Even Condi can't get out of this one.

On a side note, you wrote VD, and I thought you were talking about the STD:o


On top of everything else......I'm a lazy woman.......:o :csad:

[Venom'sDad]

Oooooooh, so I guess, even though I haven't made my decision because there is alot of debate to be had before November.........then out of sheer womanhood, I will be supporting Hillary..........NOW I know why VD called me close-minded now........my mind is already made up........of course.:sleepy:

:confused: What are you talking about.... I never called you that. I'm not sure I have even replied to any of your posts. :confused:

[souvlaki]

Associated Press is already calling Nevada for Mitt Romney? How the hell can they call it so early?

[Kel]

:confused: What are you talking about.... I never called you that. I'm not sure I have even replied to any of your posts. :confused:



True....not close-minded......you told me to take my blinders off actually.....:yay:

[Kel]

Associated Press is already calling Nevada for Mitt Romney? How the hell can they call it so early?


The % between him and #2 is too great to overcome in the hours remaining........now South Carolina is a different story......we won't know that one for hours....

[souvlaki]

CNN projected Mitt Romney with 1% of the votes counted. Ha. I understand how they can make that projection, but I just find that funny they can project it with 1% of the votes counted.

[souvlaki]

I know it's only 2%, but Ron Paul is currently second in Nevada. Wow.

[The Senator]

It's no surprise Mitt Romney won this. While there may be 2% reporting, two factors play into Romney's victory: First, he was the only Republican to actively campaign in Nevada, since everyone else focused on South Carolina's primary (which is also today). Second, he's a Mormon, and while religion usually doesn't have a huge effect on who wins these things... Nevada has the second-largest Mormon population in the United States, next to Utah. So that probably gave him a huge boost.

I think it's pretty safe to say Romney will stay on top, even after the remaining 98% of the "votes" are counted.

On a surprise note... interesting to see Ron Paul so high up there. What's even more interesting-- and just downright hilarious-- is that Rudy Giuliani is in last place.

[souvlaki]

Wow... Ron Paul is really competing for second place. I'm finding it hilarious how CNN are for the most part just ignoring this.

[Venom'sDad]

This proves as I have been saying how selfish and ambitious Edwards is. He is polling bad, has no real shot whats so ever, and is staying in the race to broker some reverence. He's in single digits now in polling.

Now hillary loves him, because he is only hurting Obama.

[hippie_hunter]

Clinton is projected as the winner.

[X-Rated]

Why are we making Nevada a big deal? The state population is 2.5 million and yet only 47,000 voted. Less than 18,000 for Romney. What's bad, 10,000 voted Democrat. Romney alone beats that. :lmao:

[Kel]

I think its pretty funny after all of the debate we have had over the unions in Nevada, Hillary ended up winning.....lmao. I love politics....

[hippie_hunter]

I like how CNN put "Edwards has yet to win a primary event" under him :p

[Kel]

I know they are so mean.....lmao

[StorminNorman]

StorminMormon dominated Nevada.

Dominated.

[The Senator]

Wooooooooooooooooooooooo-hoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Go Hill!

[Kel]

StorminMormon dominated Nevada.

Dominated.


Well hell he should have..........just like he did Michigan, no one campaigned in those states except for him....lmao.....McCain did alittle in Michigan, but nothing noteworthy......

[StorminNorman]

Well hell he should have..........just like he did Michigan, no one campaigned in those states except for him....lmao.....McCain did alittle in Michigan, but nothing noteworthy......

Regardless - his win margin is incredible. Far beyond my expectations.

Also - Huckabee, McCain and Romney all campaigned in Michigan. Not to the extent of Romney's campaign - but he also has the most financially stable campaign.

[Kel]

Regardless - his win margin is incredible. Far beyond my expectations.

Also - Huckabee, McCain and Romney all campaigned in Michigan. Not to the extent of Romney's campaign - but he also has the most financially stable campaign.


He has the most financially stable campaign because he is using alot of his own money............don't get me wrong, he has had a great week.....and his delegate count has gone up.........so in the end, he's doing very well.

Although, people think that Nevada is a great delegate coup for Romney, there will not be as many delegates from that state as there will be from South Carolina.....but as I said before.....

The Republican Campaign, begins in Florida......whoever comes out of Florida on top, will be primed for Super Tuesday.......Florida is the state to win......


And those damn women voters are pushing Hillary to the top all over the place.....lol

[Venom'sDad]

The Republican Campaign, begins in Florida......whoever comes out of Florida on top, will be primed for Super Tuesday.......Florida is the state to win......

I agree