Apparently Obama supporters are smearing Clinton, saying she's involved in the Nevada lawsuit

I have heard enough cries from Obama supporters claiming that Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid are somehow involved in a lawsuit that would make it harder for Obama's supporters to vote. I don't know about Harry Reid's involvement, or the evidence behind his involvement, but Hillary Clinton denied this today in Las Vegas' largest newspaper, and I haven't read no evidence showing that this is anything other than another "Hillary-killed-Vince-Foster" baseless rumor.

From Las Vegas Review-Journal:



http://www.lvrj.com/news/13746892.html

Obama.

which would inhibit Obama supporters from attending the caucuses

just another reason to get rid of caucuses

Voting on the Strip a no-no, suit says
Not allowing nine polling sites would hurt Obama, help Clinton

By David McGrath Schwartz

Sat, Jan 12, 2008 (2 a.m.)

The teachers union has drawn knives on the Culinary Workers, deepening the potential political rifts over Nevada’s Jan. 19 Democratic caucus.

<>The other plaintiffs are Dwayne Chesnut, John Cahill, Vicky and John Birkland, and Patricia Montgomery.

(According to this hillaryclinton.com news release John Cahills's wife, Diane Cahill, is one of the founding members of Hillary's Nevada Women Leadership Council and the Nevada State Education Association’s deputy executive director (one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit), Debbie Cahill, "The council will advise the campaign, lead efforts to organize "Women for Hillary" in Nevada and play a key role in mobilizing women for the January 19 caucus.")

Above information can be found at: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=2982

Some of them were active backers of Sen. Dina Titus’ 2006 bid for governor. Titus, of Las Vegas, has endorsed Clinton.

Mark Ferrario, the attorney who filed the lawsuit, would not comment on how he got the clients, other than to say they care about the fairness of the caucus process.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan/12/voting-stripa-no-no-suit-says/

Something tells me that it wouldn't be happening had another candidate gotten the union endorsement.

.....to be a possibility for Obama or his supporters.

Hillary yeah, I can see her supporters behind that kind of thing.

of being involved in this attempt at vote suppression. And I as an Obama supporter haven't either. I have noted that high ranking officials within the teachers union, who are bringing this suit aimed at vote suppression, are highly placed Clinton supporters, that the law firm representing the Union is connected to Clinton, that Rory Reid is her NV campaign chief, and that those involved approved the plan up until the day that Obama was endoresed by the CWU.

People aren't stupid in NV. They'll draw their own conlusions.

I have read 3 or 4 thread in which DU members sympathetic to Obama have said that Clinton, and sometimes "Clinton and Reid", are behind this lawsuit.

because the facts don't jibe with her baseless accusations.

None are so blind....

the whole thing is very suspect

Referring to a thread about the Nevada lawsuit.

The Clinton's are as dirty as they come...I hope this issue is raised during the NV debate. To put Clinton on the spot.

That's just one instance.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4052397#4052454

Clintons are pulling out the sleaziest of tactics from Rove and the DLC. She is "The Revenge of Bush".

In the first comment of this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4052717#4052752

He has a picture of Obama in his profile and is a known Obama supporter.

He does NOT make the specific allegation, or specifically imply that Hillary Clinton herself or Reid helped to plan the lawsuit. But key supporters with close links to her ARE involved in the lawsuit, and BOTH of them, as well as Reid's son Rory, have insisted on making NO COMMENT about the lawsuit rather than condemning it.

In some circumstances, as here, such "neutrality" is something for which they might later be expected to 'pay' politically. You might not agree with this analysis, but it's CRUCIAL not to put words in other people's mouths.

I would note, by way of vaguely parrallel example, how when Novak came out with a report (later corroborated) that HRC campaign people were spreading the word that they had some 'dirt' on Obama that they were withholding, Obama challenged her to either publicize the "dirt" or disavow that there is any. She denied INSTEAD that her campaign was spreading such rumors, scored Obama for supposedly believing Novak, and then pointedly and cagily DID NOT deny that she or her campaign had any such information.

Of course, it later turned out that people linked with her campaign were neck-deep in this sort of stuff, and that Novak was not (as he often is) COMPLETELY full of it journalistically. If my recollection is accurate, there was at least one resignation or one case where HRC had to distance herself from one of those falling within the broad penumbra of this news story. I'm sorry but my memory for all these details is not encyclopaedic.

all the old dregs of the past. Where is all the Unity??

This is perfect proof NH was right. Stop Folks, no coronation.
This guy may not be ready.

HRC is not involved in the Lawsuit.

Just because the location had been set up so it favored Obama
but keeps major portions of Nevads locked out---cry cry cry.

Setting it up at the Casino's where the Casino Workers are
and having it at times when the other Nevadans cannot get
there.======Who is really playing unfair here.

Why do you automatically assume its Obama supporters?

And...the archives show a pattern of support towards Obama.

There's no dispute.

"Some of them were active backers of Sen. Dina Titus’ 2006 bid for governor. Titus, of Las Vegas, has endorsed Clinton."

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan/12/voting-stripa-no-no-suit-says/

"The plaintiffs have ties, albeit indirect, to the Clinton campaign. Dan Hart, chief political consultant to the state teachers union, has run Reid’s campaigns in the past and is currently an unpaid adviser to him. Some of the activists were active backers of state Sen. Dina Titus’ failed 2006 bid for governor. Titus, a Democratic national committeewoman, has endorsed Clinton. She did not return a call seeking comment.

As The New York Times reported Saturday, the teachers union’s deputy executive director, Debbie Cahill, was a founding member of Clinton’s Nevada Women’s Leadership Council.

Those ties and the timing of the suit, coming months after the caucus plan was approved by the Democratic National Committee but days after the endorsement threatened to boomerang on the New York senator."
<snip>

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan/13/culinary-leader-closing-sites-strip-would-strike-c

The weak "links" you presented do not constitute evidence.

“Not for us to decide,” said Rory Reid, Clinton’s state chairman, in an e-mail to the Sun. “We just want the process to be fair.”

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan/13/culinary-leader-closing-sites-strip-would-strike-c/

Somebody should ask Reid if it's currently unfair. Your assertions that there's no evidence but there's links is intellectually dishonest.

Just ask military members, or people who have to work, or moms with kids, or the elderly and infirm who are house-bound or have no transportation but could otherwise vote by absentee ballot or any of a million other reasons.

If you make special provisions to accommodate one group, you automatically do so at the expense of another group. You can't expect the excluded group(s) to be happy about it.

That said, I do believe one should error on the side of allowing the largest number of people to vote/caucus.

On the other hand, just on principle, I'm not sure I like the idea of "at large" caucus locations. One of the major advantages of a caucus is to gets people to come together with their communities of friends and neighbors. Are we now defined by our workplace? What do I have in common, what enduring social bond, with someone who just happens to be in the area on a given day? How do I even know he or she belongs there? Something about it just doesn't seem quite kosher.

If that were the way we wanted to go, why tie voting of any sort to residence? Why not just offer open locations to everybody? Proof of citizenship and be done with it. I suppose that would be the most democratic. Pretty soon we'll all have national ID cards anyway. Maybe we just get a punchhole to show we voted? LOL I'm not being serious, but this is a move in that direction, I guess.