Sour Grapes for Clinton? Plaintiffs in NV Teachers' Union lawsuit approved State Party's caucus plan

[Emit]

Some of the people bringing this law suit were present at the Central Committee's meeting in March and could have complained back then. Is it mere coincidence that two days after the Culinary's endorsement of Obama they filed this suit?

Plaintiffs in Nevada lawsuit approved State Party's caucus plan

Tough-Guy Politics on the Vegas Strip
January 12, 2008 7:58 PM

Two days after a key Nevada union of casino employees endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, allies of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, filed a lawsuit to block the special "at-large" casino precincts set up months ago for those very casino employees.

~snip~


The lawsuit was filed by the firm Kummer, Kaempfer, Bonner, Renshaw, and Ferrario. Senior partners Michael Bonner and Christian Kaempfer have donated money to Clinton in the past, and Clinton ally and former Rep. James H. Bilbray, D-Nev., is an attorney at that firm.

The state party approved the at-large precincts at its Nevada State Democratic Party's State Central Committee meeting on March 31, 2007.

According to those minutes and attendance records of the obtained by ABC News (Click HERE), four plaintiffs now suing the state party to stop these "at-large" precincts from convening were in attendance: Clark Party Second Vice Chair Vicki Birkland and John Birkland, Party Third Vice Chair Dwayne Chesnut and Clark County Public Administrator John Cahill.

The "Delegation Selection Plan Review and Approval" including these "at-large" precincts was, according to minutes of the meeting reviewed by ABC News, "Passed unanimously." The plan was submitted to the Democratic National Committee for approval in August.

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

[gaiilonfong]

1. It is going to come back to bite her

GOOD! She is becoming more disgusting by the hour.

[thunder rising]

2. But that was when it was to be in HRC's favor ... it's all different now

Clinton is dragging the good name and standing of teachers into the slime that inundates her political practices.

[thunder rising]

3. Just like Bush, throw anybody under the bus to save your a$$

[mondo joe]

25. Hillary is draggingthe good name of the teachers into the slime? THEY are the ones

who initiated the lawsuit!

[caligirl]

4. surrogate doing the dirty repug voter suppression attempts for Hil.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/12/175135/819/474/435829

[lapfog_1]

51. Wow, NH too (voter suppression against Obama)

(snip)

The second, more nefarious tactic was voter suppression.

There was

...attempt by Clinton officials to remove Obama volunteers who had been sent to many polling places on primary day to check off the names of voters as they arrived so that the campaign's get out the vote workers would know which of their supporters had and hadn't voted...

Basically they were trying to disrupt the Obama GOTV

Clinton volunteers and local lawyers acting on behalf of the campaign demanded in Nashua, Concord and at least one other town that poll moderators ban the Obama volunteers from the polls, saying that their presence violated a state law stating that only the state party chairmen can delegate people to monitor the polls.

Except it wasn't true. There was nothing wrong about what Obama's team was doing.

(snip)

Now, I may be wrong, but this is in my mind the kind of Republican tactic that Democrats scream about - and justifiably. What does this mean when Democrats to this to other Democrats?

What kind of campaign sends out cynically misleading mailings and then tries to stop the other campaign from setting the record straight?

What kind of campaign tries to stop another campaign from getting voters to vote?

The margin of victory was less than 8,000 votes. That's it.

(snip)

What do Clinton's people say?

Bette Lasky, the assistant House majority leader and a top Clinton supporter who was involved in both the e-mail and poll interventions, said she was sorry to hear about the bad feelings but hoped Obama supporters would get over it. "It's politics, and it happens," she said.


======================================================================================

This is just crap. And the most telling thing is the quote from this Lasky person "It's politics and it happens." It's just this attitude that turns people off from politics. It's all a game, just to see who can do in the other guy. Ratfucking. Never has there been a better descriptive term of this type of activity. And there are people here defending it and acting like "everyone does it, get over it".

Fuck that.

Present your ideas, give us your resume, tell us why you want it so bad and what you will do if you get it. Inspire us with leadership. Challenge us to do better. And promise us you will do your best.

Not this crap. Even if it works, it's not worth it.

[lapfog_1]

5. I was never in favor of Hillary

but if she was the nominee, I was going to vote for her. Not enthusiastically, but vote for her anyway.

Now... I'm rethinking that position.

And I bet I'm not the only one.

[Yael]

7. You aren't

[Yael]

6. Coincidence? No.

Welcome to Camp Clinton. Thats how they roll...

[RB TexLa]

8. If you are not willing to do everything to win, that means you are not willing to win and you do not

deserve to win.

Obama can hire lawyers.

[ursi]

9. but crapping on low income casino workers is not right, it just ain't right

I find it despicable.

[lapfog_1]

10. That, my friends, is a republican talking.

We are better than that... or at least I thought we were.

Lie, cheat, steal, whatever it takes, so long as you win, because if you DON'T, you don't deserve to win. Why not take it all the way... kill should be an option too, right?

Donald Segretti would be so pleased... and Lee Atwater too.

[mondo joe]

28. Lying, cheating and stealing are illegal and therefore of limits. Having a dispute go to

court is not only not illegal, it's the proper course.

[lapfog_1]

37. You mean ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT!

Yup, that's the RIGHT WAY to win an election!

I knew Bush was right all along!

:sarcasm:

(and of course, you meant to say "court is not only legal, it's the proper course", not the double negative that you actually used)

[mondo joe]

38. I don't see what Bush has to do with it.

Incidentally, my double negative was just fine. :-)

[lapfog_1]

42. logical extension of your argument

and if you don't see that, then there is nothing I can say.

In 2000, the Repukes used the courts (and they kept court shopping until they found one they liked) to steal the election.

Using lawsuits to prevent people from voting (or making it nearly impossible for them to vote) AFTER a union they might belong to declares for your opponent stinks and smacks of the worst activities of Lee Atwater and his ilk.

That people here are PASSIONATELY defending this is simply beyond me.

I wouldn't defend Edwards, Obama, or Joe Biden (my candidate) if they engaged in this. They would be getting emails from me asking WTF and "do you want my continued support? If so, renounce this and make it go away". I guess I have ethics and morals and many here just want to see their man or woman win, anyway possible.

It just surprises me.

I didn't like it when an Obama supporter suggested that Bill Clinton was talking about the Obama campaign when he said "fairy tales" when, in fact, Bill was talking about Obama's stance on the Iraq war. If you listen to the remarks in context, it was very clear. Obama should have come out and distanced himself from those that made an issue of it. Not one of the leading candidates from the Democratic side is clean on the whole Iraq war thing, and they should all apologize for a lack of judgement... and I believe only Edwards has. Obama maintains that he was always opposed to the war, which isn't quite true, and Hillary has never admitted that she made a mistake (only that if we knew then what we know now... which isn't the same thing as apologizing or admitting a mistake).

[mondo joe]

44. Correction: both Bush and Gore sought judicial intervention.

There was nothing wrong with seeking judicial intervention in the dispute. There is still nothing wrong with it. The problem was the Supreme Court's faulty decision - and not faulty because I disagree with it, but as a matter of process and precedent by creating a special one-time only ruling.

This isn't a lawsuit to prevent anyone from voting, but a lawsuit to ensure that the system is constitutionally sound. How could I have a problem with that?

[lapfog_1]

49. You are being disingenuous to the max

Of course it will, if successful, prevent thousands, perhaps 10s of thousands from caucusing (this isn't a vote!)

The 9 casinos that are part of the "at-large precinct" program each have to qualify by having 4000 employees or more. That's a minimum of 36,000 employees. The realities of Las Vegas is that living near the strip (where these workers work) is exorbitantly expensive, very likely beyond the means of any Culinary worker (and most of us as well). They commute into work, usually from long distances. Saturday is one of the busiest days in Vegas. It's the day when many "week longs" arrive and depart. "weekenders" are there as well. January is one of the busiest times of year, CES is just wrapping up as we write. There is always another big convention every week this time of year. This is the "money time" for workers of all stripes. To take off at 11:00am on Saturday to drive to your home or apartment, track down your precinct, drive there, walk into the caucus and stand around for maybe an hour or two hours, is simply not possible for these workers. The accommodation that the plaintiffs agreed to and that has been published since Sept 24, 2007 was to allow these workers (mostly union labor) to participate at their places of employment. Only now, after the union endorses a different candidate and just a short time before the caucus, we have this disenfranchising lawsuit, filed by supporters of Hillary Clinton.

If there was a generic or real concern about this plan, why wasn't this lawsuit filed in October or November or December?

And there isn't any constitutional questions at stake, since this is within the Democratic party (and the parties can choose their candidates any way they want... like, for example, the totally undemocratic "super-delegates" to the national convention, if this was even a representative process, who voted for these people? When was the primary that picked these people. Oh wait...) No constitutional questions at all, only Nevada Election Code Law violations. NRS 293.135,137 and 293.0655.

I hope a judge tosses this out.

I hope Hillary looses because of this.

[mondo joe]

53. To the contrary, if it actually prevents people from caucusing it would, of course, not

be legal and should not succeed.

[gmudem]

39. And what possible legal justification is there for this?

And no, voting for Obama or Edwards is not illegal. I'm hoping the Clintons are laughed out of court here.

[mondo joe]

41. See the suit. The justification is that there is a dispute regarding the principle of

one person one vote. Is greater justification necessary?

And since the Clinton's didn't bring the suit, they can't be laughed out of court.

You'd seem less foolish if you actually took the time to learn about the details before addressing them.

[Emit]

43. Is the caucus format a one person one vote venue, though? n/t

[mondo joe]

45. The suit claims that the system for determining the number of delegates

up for grabs at the at-large meetings is unfair.

The party has "violated the principle of 'one person, one vote' by creating 'at-large' precincts for certain caucus participants, based solely on the employment of such participants," the suit, filed in U.S. District Court, said.

[Emit]

48. My point though,

is that caucuses are not about the 'one-person, one vote' principle to begin with, whereas an election would be.

[mondo joe]

52. No, they're not precisely, but the effect is the same.

It could be argued that the effect is greater in a caucus situation.

[Emit]

11. Ouch! This local blog takes a stab (He's an Edwards supporter) 'Clinton not crying over caucus suit'

Clinton not crying over caucus suit
Poor, poor former first lady. She just doesn't know what to think about the goshdarned confusing caucus lawsuit.




From Anjeanette o' the North, who was covering Her Borgship's visit to Reno Saturday:

In a later interview, I asked Clinton again about the lawsuit. She repeated her criticism of the caucus process, that it leaves too many people out and said she wants as many people as possible to participate. Does she support the lawsuit?

"I have no opinion on the lawsuit."

Does she have an opinion on the at-large precincts as a way to make the process more fair?

"I don't. I just don't know."

Yes, well, it's not easy. And the most active of America's former first ladies couldn't do it if she didn't passionately believe it was the right thing to do. ... You know, this is very personal for her. It's not just political. It's not just public. She sees what's happening, and she has to reverse it. Some people think elections are a game, lots of who's up or who's down. It's about our country. It's about our kids' futures. And it's really about all of us together.

http://www.lasvegasgleaner.com/

[TwilightGardener]

13. LOL! yeah, we see EXACTLY who thinks "elections are a game" now, don't we?

[Emit]

47. Hillary's new ad in Nevada called "Listen"

http://mysilverstate.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=492

"Over the last week, I listened to you, and in the process I found my own voice. You helped remind everyone that politics isn't a game. This campaign is about people. About making a difference in your lives. It's time we had a president that stands up for all of you."

Edited to add correct permalink

[kikiek]

15. She probably said that because there are truths on both sides.

What was intended to help some has ended up diminishing others. Sounds like the original agreement was changed, and that is where the problem is. No one seems to care that the planned way they intend to carry it out will actually distort and dilute the process. It isn't ok to disenfranchise the other democrats in the state. Why isn't there anything being said about that?

[ShadowLiberal]

59. That's exactly what's got me pissed off at Clinton lately

I saw Hillary say something similar to that on Meet The Press, and it really pissed me off how she chose to attack caucuses in general and try to avoid talking about the lawsuit when she got asked about it.

So lets say, by Clinton's logic because caucuses are unfair since some people can't make it to one and vote because they have to work, (or do something else) that makes it perfectly acceptable to try to disenfranchise people who originally were going to be able to make it to the caucuses. Yeah that sounds real mature, that's like a little kid saying "if I can't have this toy then no one can" before breaking it.

Now I'll admit, I do agree that caucuses don't sound like the best idea in a democracy to vote on a party's nominee in the general election, I prefer primaries. However just because some places decide on caucuses and you disagree with the idea of them and prefer primaries doesn't give you right to go about voter disenfrancisement.

Lately Clinton has been really pissing me off with stuff like this, before now I would have easily been able to cast a vote for Hillary in a general election. But now I'll very grudgingly be casting a vote for her in the general election if she gets the nomination, and I'll only be casting it for supreme court nominations and to keep a repuke out of the white house.

[kikiek]

12. Several points...The teachers union is objecting. Hillary's campaign isn't involved.

The teachers union feels it is unfair to them because they aren't being afforded the same convenience. The agreement was altered and that has affected their state caucus giving unfair power to one union. NOTE----The lawsuit charges that changes were made to the agreement since then, however, and that the at-large precincts now unfairly give the casino precincts more weight -- "disingenuously" allocating delegates based on participation instead of based on registered voters, for example -- creating a "grossly amplified number of delegates" thus "treating each precinct as if it were a separate county." (Italics theirs.)
And media is creating the Hillary feeding frenzy once again. And since when does participation trump registered voters. Sounds like a union trying to determine on its own who the state will choose.

[creeksneakers2]

14. The teachers have a right to complain about

the culinary workers getting as many as 10 times the number of delegates per member as the teacher union gets. Did the teachers union agree to that?

I read most of the suit and most of it wasn't about moving the caucuses but the number of delegates the caucuses get.

The whole idea of holding caucuses one way for one group of people and another way for another group is unfair.

Lots of stuff is being said here about Hillary disenfranchising voters. Hillary has been arguing all along against the entire caucus system because its unfair for people who have to work when the caucuses. Hillary has been trying to get more people included, not less.

Seeing how unfair this is to the teachers union, I can believe they'd run this suit without being put up to it by Hillary.

By the way, the teachers union hasn't endorsed anybody. They aren't working for Hillary.

[lapfog_1]

16. You are fact challenged.

The lawsuit was filed by a law firm with close ties to Hillary.

The leadership of the Teachers Union are Hillary supporters.

Four of the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit signed off on the "at large in casino" plan back in March.

Lawsuit was filed two days after the Culinary Union endorsed Obama.

And it doesn't matter if this was done at her request or on her behalf by supporters. She hasn't put a stop to it. And you know she could.

[creeksneakers2]

18. The lawsuit was not filed by a firm with close ties to Hillary

Two lawyers at the firm donated money to Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was the president for eight years and the head of the Democratic Party to boot. Half the lawyers in the country probably donated money to Bill Clinton. The only other tie is a former Clinton supporter who works at the firm. So what? It doesn't say the guy is part of her campaign or anything like that. How many lawyers work at the firm? There are probably lawyers there who like Obama and Edwards too.

I read that a couple people in the teacher union leadership support Hillary. Others might support somebody else. If there was so much support for Hillary from the union leadership, why didn't the union endorse?

Plaintiffs may have signed off on the casino plan but I don't believe the teachers union coughed up 10 delegates for every one they got. I haven't seen anywhere that they signed off on that.

Hasn't put a stop to it? I've heard that many times from people who expect her to dive on hand grenades every time some injustice not connected to her occurs.

[spooky3]

20. and the lawsuit claims the plan was changed in October 2007

well past any agreement in March.

I guess not everyone who is concerned about being "fact challenged" has read the lawsuit.

[lapfog_1]

31. But the plan for the "at large" precincts

was very likely in the March original plan. The authors of the lawsuit do NOT identify what changed between March the "last published" date of Sept 24, 2007. (the lawsuit incorrectly identifies this publish date as Sept 24, 2008, BTW). No one alleges any changes in October.

Probably the date of the caucus was established in September, and that is likely the only change of substance at that time. Since the lawsuit doesn't include the agreement or changebars to it, it will be difficult to tell without subpoenaing the document history.

In any event, the plan that they are objecting to has been published since September of last year. Why wait until 2 days after the Culinary Union endorsed Obama to file this lawsuit?

[mondo joe]

32. The WHY doesn't matter. What matters is the legal merit of the suit.

I trust you're not advocating keeping quiet on something unconstitutional just because it was previously agreed to.

[kikiek]

33. I doubt it was drawn up in 2 days quite frankly. Implying that she is behind something

without any evidence, and then making it out to be something different than it is to try to make it stick is disgusting. She isn't involved. There are valid reasons for the concerns. The real ones being disenfranchised are the workers who aren't having special accommodations made like nurses, doctors, firefighters, police officers, anyone working at a Starbucks. You don't know what all has been said and done before this in regards to trying to settle it. The real concern should be that everyone has the opportunity to vote. Not just those in the states most powerful union.

[lapfog_1]

40. So, because some can't caucus, no one that works should be

allowed to caucus (and it's not vote, or one could argue that everyone who is working simply vote absentee).

Then you state that the "real concern should be that everyone has the opportunity to vote".

Ok, then THAT should be the thrust of the lawsuit. They should be suing not to stop the casino workers from attending a caucus, but that other workers who are required to work that day are not being afforded the opportunity. So why wasn't THAT they way the lawsuit is worded? Sue to establish "floating at-large" that accept caucus goers from any location (work or home) with a plan to ensure that they caucus only once.

So why not THAT lawsuit?

[kikiek]

46. The way it is now you can't vote even if the caucus is being held where

you work if it isn't your precinct. The example given is a janitor working at the school holding the caucus can't vote if he/she lives out of the precinct. Unless you are one of the culinary workers. Then you can vote no matter where you live. That is not fair I don't care what anyone says. That is why Reid and Clinton say they will let the court work it out. There are problems with it. There are many immigrants, and many are not able to vote. It might very well be a mute point regarding support it sounds like http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan/11/power-culinary-union-hangs-balance-its-protege-kih/ The candidates play their games and divide the party. We take it far more seriously than they do. Politics as usual, and they all engage. I think it is time for the candidates to lead the way and stop the crap going on.

[lapfog_1]

50. How very Zen of you.

Because of a few non Casino workers who can't caucus, let's not let anyone caucus that can't drive to their homes. Yup, that's fair. That's a very republican way to look at it.

Fewer voters is better, for the repukes. And, apparently, for Mrs. Clinton. And for YOU!

And we let the candidates lead the way... only because you know you are on the wrong side of this and can't squirm out no matter how you twist and turn.

Did you read the article you linked to?

Its just Wow. Let's split the union in two because having Hillary is SOOO much more important to some Hispanic Culinary workers than Obama. If they were voting their pocketbooks, they would be caucusing for Edwards.

If this Kihuen guy breaks the union over this and forms a splinter union, that will be so much worse for them than ANYTHING a mere President might do or not do. Unbelievable.

Well, I guess we'll know if she thinks he will be succesfull... Either the lawsuit is dropped (because she believes that they will caucus for her) or it will press on (in case she thinks that the Union will prevail).

[mondo joe]

55. It's hard to understand your patronizing attitude toward the unions, or your

opposition to ensuring EQUAL access for voters regardless of their employment.

[spooky3]

57. several problems here:

(a) "the plan was very likely...": What was agreed to and whether later changes were substantive, meet the requirements of Nevada law, etc., are questions of fact, evidence, etc., that the court has to determine. Our guesses about what was or was likely not true are not relevant here.
(b) The lawsuit was not incorrect on the 2008 date; the *plan document* to which it refers has that date on it.
(c) "No one alleges": not exactly true, if you mean that everyone stipulates that there were no changes in October. Point #11: "The date the final plan was adopted is unknown." The lawsuit points out that there was an October announcement of delegate selection process. It is not clear whether that followed an agreed upon plan or was a new feature. But even if it did conform, you're splitting hairs here, since the plan document is dated September 24--presumably in 2007 since 2008 has not occurred, which is just 6 days previously and months after the March plan approval date.
(d) "likely the only change of substance" - again, probability is NOT relevant here. Where there was or was not a change of substance is what must be determined.
(e) "since the lawsuit doesn't include the agreement...": A link to the "September 24, 2008 (sic)" plan was included in the document, and I was able to download it. Changebars--seems to me you would want to ask whoever changed the plan to produce that.
(f) as I said elsewhere, the timing can certainly be questioned by the court, and I don't know why the plaintiffs chose the timing, but if they are within the statute of limitations, then personally, I don't care.

[lapfog_1]

22. Even your guy Herman Munster

posted just now that the head of the teachers union is a Hillary supporter:

=============================================================================
"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."
=============================================================================

Of course, he just did a cut paste job from another source. But my guess is that the reporter on this story got THIS fact correct.

Also, your 10 to 1 numbers are simply incorrect. 10 percent MORE is the correct count:

=============================================================================
"The new plan drawn up by the Democratic party calls for 1,754 caucuses at which 10,446 delegates will be chosen. 7,224 of them will be from Clark County, which includes Las Vegas. Clark County has more than 4,000 registered Democrats.

Unlike primaries in which people can vote all day, caucuses in Nevada, as in Iowa and elsewhere, require voters to show up at a specified time. To enable participation by those voters who will be working at the scheduled caucus time, the party created the new precincts using a formula based on districts with more than 4,000 shift workers who could not leave work to vote, rather than one based on residency.

The new at-large precincts are all inside the Las Vegas Strip hotels. Workers attending the hotel caucuses will have to provide identification showing them to be a shift worker and sign a declaration stating they can't attend their "home" caucus because of their work schedule.

The teachers, and other workers who can't attend caucuses because of work, are not being provided special caucuses and thus they won't be able to vote.

The lawsuit then analyzes the effect of the new "at large" caucus votes and alleges that the plan gives the hotel workers a disproportionately large number of delegates. Go read the lawsuit for the exact numbers but essentially it concludes the new system will create an additional 720 delegates for Clark County, which in turn will dilute the value of a delegate assignment and the voice of the other Clark County caucus participants."
============================================================================

See, 720 more delegates for Clark County (out of total of 7224). And this was all set up when Hillary thought she was going to be endorsed by the major unions in Las Vegas.

Why didn't the Teachers Union endorse... who knows? Perhaps they were thinking that they didn't NEED to endorse Hillary since she was the front runner, perhaps they can't get their membership to vote to endorse Hillary. The fact remains that the leadership is closely associated with Hillary.

And she hasn't put a stop to it and it IS connected to her. And it isn't that big of a hand grenade. All she has to do is call her bud Debbie Cahill, I'm sure she has her phone number on speed dial and tell her to drop the lawsuit.

[kikiek]

24. Big deal. Everyone supports someone. It is about some people having the right to

vote, and not making sure others have the same luxury.

[spooky3]

29. it's more complicated than that

read it again--it concerns one person-one vote, opportunities provided to some groups that are not made available to others to caucus, changes in agreed upon plans months later--without consulting all parties to the agreement, etc.

[kikiek]

35. I agree.

[lapfog_1]

36. You need to read it again

it is complaining that some of the casinos shift workers (and only at casinos that employ more than 4000 employees so as to qualify as "non rural" and get 1 delegate per 50 registered voters... as opposed to rural precincts which get MORE delegates... so much for "one person one vote") Anyway, since we don't know where these shift workers RESIDE (like maybe they commute in from SearchLight) they might be getting an unfair representation... the unfairness being NOT that they are getting a better ratio, in fact, they might well be getting a lower ratio! No, it's unfair, the lawsuit alleges, because other workers are at locations where there are fewer than 4000 employees are NOT afforded the same opportunity to participate in the caucus (no "at large" for them). Specifically, they are talking about the teachers who will be in their schools, helping the local residents caucus, and therefore, NOT participating since they don't live in that precinct.

So... because a few hundred teachers volunteered to work the caucus at their schools, they are not afforded the opportunity to participate as the THOUSANDS of casino workers... so they want to not allow the casino workers to participate at their places of employment.

So... disenfranchise 10s of thousands (remember that this is at 9 casinos, each of which has at least 4000 workers) because the same opportunity is not afforded to a few hundred volunteers (one article makes it sound like this is a requirement for the teachers, so I guess, until some one get the facts, I'll drop the volunteer thing).

[spooky3]

54. sorry, none of what you say changes what is in the lawsuit itself

or my opinion, which is that we don't have the evidence to sort out to what extent the allegations have merit or whether a compromise can be worked out.

[spooky3]

58. go back to points #17-19, and #30-41, among others.

Among the claims of the lawsuit, and I don't know if they are valid, is that the plan does NOT conform to Nevada law regarding the apportionment of delegates, and that the plan provides more voting power to the casino workers than Nevada law permits, relative to those of other workers. They aren't ONLY concerned about the teachers not being allowed to same opportunity to caucus.

[creeksneakers2]

27. Funny title for the head of the teachers' union -

Deputy executive director. The deputy is in charge?

I worked out the per precinct number of delagates for the other caucuses. It comes out to a hair under 6 each. The 9 casino caucuses will get 80 each.

[kikiek]

17. Facts don't matter here anymore I guess.

[spooky3]

21. have you read the lawsuit?

[kikiek]

23. yeah..and it isn't involving any candidate.

[spooky3]

26. ok, sorry, I may have misinterpreted your prior post

[kikiek]

30. It was ambiguously worded sorry.

[kath]

19. {pedant mode} NOT sour grapes:

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/sour.html
In a famous fable by Aesop, a fox declared that he didn’t care that he could not reach an attractive bunch of grapes because he imagined they were probably sour anyway. You express sour grapes when you put down something you can’t get: “winning the lottery is just a big headache anyway.” The phrase is misused in all sorts of ways by people who don’t know the original story and imagine it means something more general like "bitterness” or “resentment."


also see
http://www.deselbybowen.com/parlando/category/words/pedantry-and-anti-pedantry/
Okay, this one really bothers me, because it has a specific, vivid application, and it's helpfully spelled out in the parable so anyone can remember it! "Sour grapes" is constantly used to signify simple jealousy or bitterness or petulance. "'Of course the Yankees win; they're the richest team in baseball.' 'Aw, that's just sour grapes.'" "She says he only got the promotion because he's Armenian, but I think that's just sour grapes."

Sour Grapes means to devalue the thing you want but can't have. When you say, after not getting a job, "It probably sucked anyway," that's sour grapes.


(sorry - pet peeve of mine. Not as much as the all-too-prevalent apostrophe problem, but right up there. And I'm way too sick of all the primary bullshit to even begin to want to post about all that crap. ACK.)

[Emit]

34. "Clinton Bashes the Process Ahead of Nev. Caucuses"

ABC News' Eloise Harper reports: With the Nevada caucuses approaching on Jan. 19, Sen. Hillary Clinton reflected upon her defeat in the Iowa caucuses at an appearance in Las Vegas' District 11, a lower-income and predominately Hispanic part of town, suggesting caucuses cause a "disenfranchisement" of voters and perhaps lowering expectations for her campaign in Nevada.

"You have a limited period of time on one day to have your voices heard," Clinton, D-N.Y., said. "That is troubling to me. You know in a situation of a caucus, people who work during that time -- they're disenfranchised. People who can't be in the state or who are in the military, like the son of the woman who was here who is serving in the Air Force, they cannot be present."

Clinton didn't admit to any frustration about the 60,000-member Culinary Workers Union's recent endorsement in Nevada of her chief rival, Sen. Barack Obama.

"I'm very committed to reaching out and meeting the people in this state," Clinton said. "The leaders that I have here in my campaign are very confident that we will do very well."

~snip~

Clinton went door-to-door canvassing for votes with state Assemblyman Ruben Kihuen, age 27. The senator, who does not speak Spanish, did run into some language barriers. At one point Clinton tried to explain to two men what a caucus was. They nodded, but then had to receive the full translation moments later. Clinton did say "gracias," but that was about all of the Spanish ABC News heard from the senator.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/clinton-lowers.html

[Shakespeare]

56. I agree with Josh Marshall's take on this.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/063499.php