Sen Kerry weighs in on Nevada voting lawsuit on TPM

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/specialguests/2008/jan/16/let_the_people_vote">Let the People Vote



This is in response to a lawsuit that a Teacher's Union that had endorsed Sen. Clinton filed to close/move caucus sites in Hotels and casinos. The Culinary Workers Union endorsed Sen. Obama last week and the bulk of it's members work in the Hotel/Gaming industry in Las Vegas.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/specialguests/2008/jan/16/let_the_people_vote

There is a DU post here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4083691

For those who haven't been following this, the gist is that way back some time ago (last May I think), the Nevada Dem party agreed to new caucus rules that created "at-large" caucus locations for some classes of workers, mainly casino and other workers in those areas, who otherwise wouldn't have been able to attend their caucus because of the timing.

Everyone agreed to the new rules at the time. However, shortly after the culinary workers union (CWU) endorsed Obama, the teachers union joined with people allegedly supporting Clinton, to bring a lawsuit that would block the at-large caucuses.

The bottom line, as I understand it, is if the plaintiffs (teachers union) get their way, the casino workers will not be able to participate in the caucus.

The rationale by the teachers union that this disenfranchisement is legitimate, is that some of their members are disenfranchised by the "new" rules.

However remember that the rules are not all that new; presumably there was an opportunity to raise the issue affecting teachers union members at the time the rules were being revised; and even if all is innocent and IF the suit has merit, the timing makes Clinton* look really, really, really bad.

* Clinton because it appears that the leaders of the teachers union are supporting her, even though the union itself didn't officially endorse.

Someone suggested that might be a good idear. :)

I am tired of the trash talk. This is an excellent article.

and instead of discussing it and its implications, the media and the blogosphere are parsing every word and every nuance in the pathetic race dispute.

Edited to add: I just read the TPM entry.



A perfect description for why I do not want Clinton to win.

The Nevada Lawsuit and the Doctrine of Laches (w. Updates) http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=236

Kerry'd had surrogates to rely on like - um, like Kerry - in 2004.

so many times. Like man could Kerry have used John Kerry in 2004. The cloning thing is still years away! :)

I could be really off base because I am not from Massachusetts, but it really seemed like Kennedy went from supporting Kerry because he respected him to being extremely excited that Kerry could be what Kerry spoke of Obama being.

Part of the problem is that the Democratic party's elders in 2004 were had problems in 2004. Al Gore was still seen as very angry. It is not clear he wanted to be a surrogate and, in fact, I don't think he acted as one for Dean. Jimmy Carter never gets the respect he deserved. Kerry was great to give both of them speeches - but neither was active as an advocate. Though Democrats still argue that Bill Clinton was the best politician ever, he has never been a good supporter of anyone. Add that to the fact that he really was disgraced in the 1990s, even though he was not impeached. He could raise an enthusiastic crowd of people already 100% Democrat, but if he were prominent it would hamper some conversions. I was tempted, but behaved, in the threads on the Huffington Post to look for a Utube of Clinton's angry "fairy tale" speech and the "This week" link, and make the point that one of these men is a statesman, made a great case for his candidate, and praised all the Democrats - and the other didn't. The reaction to Kerry by the Clinton people on that thread defied logic. Their extreme reaction likely reflects they know that he has the moral standing and credibility to make those comments.

It's almost scary to think what multiple John Kerrys could accomplish. :D

Sigh!

How are you Fabio? Nice of you to check in. Always a pleasure to hear from you.

:hi: :patriot:

I love Kerry's statement - it is a typical Kerry call to conscience and I bet no one here doubts that he would never be a part of something like this himself and would, just as he said, have made the same statement no matter who they endorsed. If we needed one this is another issue that shows the difference between the Clintons and good Democrats. (Whether or not Shrum was accurate in saying the Clintons were just in this for power, it looks like an accurate statement. Can we trust her not to bend the rules like Bush does? We may agree with the actions she does it for, but what does it do in the process.

here.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2008_01_13.php

John Kerry: Let the People Vote!

You may have heard about this lawsuit brought by Clinton supporters in Nevada trying to change the rules at the last minute in the Nevada caucus because Barack Obama managed to snag the highly coveted Culinary Union endorsement.

As I've noted earlier, it stinks to high heaven.

Now Sen. Kerry (D-MA) sounds off about this attempt to disenfranchise the casino workers in a new post at TPMCafe.

It's a tough piece. Give it a read. This is a critically important issue that is about no less than keeping Democrats on the right side of the right to vote.

--Josh Marshall

JK deserves high praise, and support, for his efforts. I read that the judge is handing down his decision today. . when somebody hears, please let us know. On the face of it, the teachers' union has a laughably unsupportable case; all the facts are against them. (I heard their representative on Hardball, and he was truly pathetic, especially in contrast to the Culinary Workers' representative, who so clearly knew what was up). But, since the Nevada Democratic Establishment seems to be on the Clinton side of the fence (never mind that they gave their blessing to this proposal in March. .), I'm nervous about this one.

I'm SO proud that JK has taken this on.

that the NV dem party and the DNC have submitted briefs (or whatever the proper legal term is, I have no idea) in support of keeping things exactly as they are. So the local party establishment may have a kind of funny problem on their hands: they may support Clinton, but they were part of establishing and setting the rules in the first place! By the way, did you see the video clip with BC recent rant on this?

and there is NOTHING better than Kerry speaking up for what he knows is right.

Seems as if the selfless crusader we've always known is finally acknowledged, by doing something for others so visibly. I don't know why all the other moments and causes haven't resonated. Maybe critical mass as the opportunity to rid ourselves of Clinton, or fresh start.

Yahoo:

about Kerry's schedule in NV? Just curious....

Also, Leahy in his statement endorsing Obama comes out strongly against the lawsuit http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/leahy_endorses_obama_likens_him_to_bobby_kennedy.php

Great about Leahy, especially his concurring on the lawsuit.Thanks for news on this

won't post the link here, but dated Jan 16
What is WITH her, anyway?? Completely vile, totally over the top, completely irrational. There just has to be some backstory there .The unfairness is not only wrong, but just plain bizarre . She must be getting good money for this, or again, there's some emotional backstory there
:wtf::mad::puke::grr: :nuke:

get her back, and I will never, ever read her blog for insights again. Larry Johnson's No Quarter has gone similarly mad. Are they even Democrats anymore? I mean, I'm not mad at Evan Bayh for endorsing Hillary. It's just an endorsement; you win some, you lose some. But there is an attitude of this being THEIRS and HOW DARE someone else take it away from them.

I feel the same way. Bill Clinton's "HOW DARE YOU???" attitude, ditto. It's yet another reason why we're not republicans. No one "deserves" to be president. You have to earn it - no inheritance rights apply.

last night, way too close to bedtime, and ended up, predictably, seething.

I don't understand what's happened to her, either, though, as with Digby (as far as I can tell, anyway), there may be some kind of "sisterhood" feminist backlash operating here.

I hate it. I'd never vote either for or against someone based solely on that kind of calculation.

More stuff here: http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=248

Thank god for Al Giordano.

bipartisanship that she has been opposing for a while now. To a point, she is right. No need to praise the other side too much. Reagan is still a bad president and there are not a lot of good Republicans in the House and the Senate. Which does not mean that you do not need to talk to the other side to make them understand what you want and try to work with them if you want to do something.

This is probably what bothers me (and others) the more about Obama. Leahy and Kerry's endorsement, as well as Feingold's appreciation make clear that he is not another Lieberman, but I sometimes think he needs to reexplain where his values are. Somewhere in the bickering, this has been lost (not so much on Iraq than in domestic policies). People need to understand what he wants (and it has been distorted by people like Krugman, Taylor Marsh, and others).

Also, the notion of dialog is so foreign to some branches of the blogosphere after 16 years of bitter bickering between the two parties that they are bothered by it. And digby has been able to keep her questions within a reasonable range.

TaylorMarsh, though, has totally jumped the shark, in a way that I cannot understand (was she not opposing Hillary Clinton and the DLC a few years ago??).

I've been trying not to pay too much attention, but didn't Kerry say as much during his endorsement speech? Or maybe it was on This Week? Something about Obama needing to define himself before someone else does it for him.

This is one place where it helps to be the noisiest guy in the room.

I don't consider myself an Obama partisan at all. I have my own problems with his generational argument. To me, he's the candidate left standing who has the most potential. But the Clintons seem to be doing their level best to chase me firmly into his camp.

I was just watching MSNBC and there was a quote from Leahy in the ticker at the bottom of the screen, something about "feeling in his gut" that Obama is the right choice or something close to this (Iam fighting a headache, so both my memory and perception may be impaired :-(). If I remember correctly, Kerry said something quite similar in his endorsement speech. I am not sure myself what I am driving at, but I find it interesting that men of Kerry and Leahy's experience, age, intelligence, political savvy, etc. use this kind of language to describe their reasons to support Obama. I am not sure what it means, not even sure it means anything at all actually, but it just struck me as kind of unusual...

Nevada courts rule in favor of casino workers . http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2705326&mesg_id=2705326

The only question I still have is whether it WAS set up to over represent the strip workers. (likely by the most honest potential nominee couple)

but there's this: http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/early-line/2008/jan/16/bill-and-counting-game/

Al Giordano linked to it, and he's been my source for Nevada news.

Is it just me or is the tone and pattern to close to "i did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky."

I saw the video of Clinton on Prosense's link on GD-P. He was almost horrible, angry and a bully - the Chris Wallace fight redux. What I don't get is why they challenged the sites rather than challenging the mathematical rules. I'm not sure what a fair estimator would be. In some ways doing it proportional to who shows up might be fairest. With the addition of the at large ones, the areas these workers come from are represented two ways. At any rate, that should have been thought out a long time ago.

How many times as Mr Clinton's temper showed? He is fast reminding people that even Democrats spoke of Clinton fatigue in the late 1990s. He was high maintenance and not worth it.