View Story | 920 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
we want.
If you think Terry McAuliffe was a better DNC head than Howard Dean, then Clinton is the right vote.
"[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.
by Geekesque on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:02:53 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
It's not.
At Facebook: The 12/12 Campaign / Harry Taylor for Congress 2008
by Iddybud on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:15:28 AM PDT
We're talking about the DNC here. The Howard Dean/Barack Obama/John Edwards wing is signficantly at odds with the Clinton/DLC wing.
by Geekesque on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:17:26 AM PDT
...because if you are, I think I must be going daft with my reading comprehension. I swore the diarist said
Howard Dean knows this. That is why the DNC is standing with the Culinary Workers Union against the preposterous lawsuits being brought to bear by the suppress-the-vote-if-at-all-possible forces of the 1990s Establishment. Dean can't come out and endorse any specific candidates (or specifically oppose any of them), but I guarantee you he knows who is on his side and who isn't. Just a hint: it's not candidates who ally themselves with Terry McAuliffe.
Howard Dean knows this. That is why the DNC is standing with the Culinary Workers Union against the preposterous lawsuits being brought to bear by the suppress-the-vote-if-at-all-possible forces of the 1990s Establishment. Dean can't come out and endorse any specific candidates (or specifically oppose any of them), but I guarantee you he knows who is on his side and who isn't.
Just a hint: it's not candidates who ally themselves with Terry McAuliffe.
The diarist is saying that the Nevada suit is Dean vs. McAuliffe in what is actually a power struggle between Labor factions in Nevada.
by Iddybud on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:24:30 AM PDT
Clinton Clinton-endorsing unions The Reid family
vs.
Howard Dean the Nevada Dem party Obama Culinary Union
by Geekesque on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:29:13 AM PDT
..more than a question of "establishment"
American workers on both sides are having it out with one another.
I see it as a perfectly legitimate question of law without the need for making this suit out to be establishment vs. non-establishment.
by Iddybud on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:49:53 AM PDT
(or very close to it) over the process of selecting their candidates. But aside from that, it's part of the Clinton campaign's nefarious attempt to suppress the vote among constituencies likely to go heavily for Barack Obama.
Join the College Kossacks on Facebook. Hat Thief
by DemocraticLuntz on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:59:36 AM PDT
Nefarious is in the eye of the political beholder.
by Iddybud on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:07:02 PM PDT
I'd be interested in how you defend this lawsuit, Iddybud.
White woman over 50 for OBAMA!! (Endorsed 6/07)
by nolalily on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:27:28 PM PDT
I'm here, as an impartial political supporter of John Edwards, to say I have no dog in the situation and I believe the points to be made on either side are worthy, on a non-political basis, of being heard. Each side's supporters, Obama's and Clinton's, are trying to maximize their chances of getting to the polls.
If I were to take on the mantle of the politically biased, I'd say that I hoped the suit would turn so many workers off to Obama OR Clinton that they'd vote for Edwards.
But I'm taking the position of looking at both sides with a politically non-jaundiced eye.
A lot of people could be riled up over this....including the rural Democrats of Nevada who have an interest in the fairness of the overall outcome of these caucuses. Nevada law and federal equal protection guarantees are in question.
I'll be interested, although not affected in a politically personal way, to see how this ends up.
by Iddybud on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:54:47 PM PDT
by nolalily on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:17:38 PM PDT
I think your point would have been more valid, however, had the lawsuit been filed in April, when all parties were first consulted, or in November, when the plans were finalized.
The fact that the suit was filed after the Culinary Union endorsement of Obama points to political wrangling that is far more significant than 2 local unions having an argument.
Personally, I think the caucus system stinks. At the very least, there should be a proxy system, with an "instant run off" type ballot, to allow anybody unable to attend to vote.
But these are issues to address when the primary/caucus system is discussed, not a week before the caucus.
by Chicago Lulu on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:27:54 PM PDT
there are unions on all sides of this. See "It's Culinary vs. Everyone Else in Labor Spat" at http://www.lasvegassun.com/...
"Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon
by Cream City on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:13:14 PM PDT
the lawsuit, it was a few union leaders who support Clinton. Note that it isn't the teachers union who is filing the suit.
x
by Yoshimi on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:00:41 PM PDT
..it can be safely inferred that the filing was considered to be in the fairest interest of its members.
Or it can be politicized, and that's your choosing.
by Iddybud on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:42:47 PM PDT
for those who worship on Saturday mornings. See Raw Story at http://rawstory.com/...
by Cream City on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 03:46:29 PM PDT
the diary did bring up the Nevada Suit and it is fair game to comment on. However, you are over-simplifying the union vs union component.
Please note, while Hillary was still in the running for the Culinary Union endorsement there wasn't any problem with the strip having caucus locations, even though the plan was approved months before. It was only after the union decided to back Obama that the Clinton Camp cried foul.
So the diarist's point is a salient one. The DNC approved the plan months ago, and Clinton's Camp has a problem now since it will help Obama. Doesn't really have to do with the teachers does it?
One Man with Courage Makes a Majority - Andrew Jackson
by Nick A on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:36:55 AM PDT
I think there are legitimate points to be argued here. I read the legal complaint vs. the state party.
by Iddybud on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:57:02 AM PDT
by Yoshimi on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:01:19 PM PDT
You're the one politicizing it, not me.
by Iddybud on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:05:23 PM PDT
by h bridges on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:06:34 PM PDT
and upsets some religious groups, too, as well as dividing labor unions in LV. It's a mess.
by Cream City on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:14:27 PM PDT
Legit points are probably being argued, but that doesn't explain the tardiness of the suit. The rules and plan were approved months ago, but no one complained until the culinary union endorsed Obama. and it is relevant that the Clinton Camp is behind the filing. It doesn't mean there are legit issues in the complaint, but it is relevant. Seems like sour grapes to me. OK?
by Nick A on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:20:23 PM PDT
..with Obama supporters here, I'm afraid. I'm an Edwards supporter. Perhaps that's why I'm seeing it as less political than you?
by Iddybud on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:38:20 PM PDT
if it wasn't politically motivated then what drove the lawsuit to happen after the endorsement instead of the prior to it?
by Nick A on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:05:59 PM PDT
The party's document is incorrectly dated. Judge won't like that. Apparently there have been many changes, so a lot of people -- and certainly the larger public -- might not have known all that was in the plan until recently. That is one thing the judge may want to sort out . . . or not. It really is the state and Dem national party responsible for this.
by Cream City on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 03:50:03 PM PDT
part of the diary, an example used to illustrate a larger point, namely that a Hillary win will usher back in the Old Guard of the 1990s, with all the triangulating, poll-driven DLC mush, and privatization that came with them.
Obama 2008
by cato on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:39:21 AM PDT
Look - using the Nevada suit as a reason to make this just another anti-Clinton statement is just as bad as the Culinary Union using the lawsuit to rally its members, calling the teachers union "a tool of the Clinton campaign."
We have a legitimate question of law here. The ones who have arguments at either end have sound reasons for their arguments.
Clinton isn't the only candidate to have Union support in Nevada. John Edwards does, too.
by Iddybud on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:55:05 AM PDT
and he's not tryign to change the rules this close to the caucus, simply b/c he didn't get the endorsement of the Culinary Workers.
Clinton is simply trying to make it harder for those members to participate now that they didn't endorse her. How can you condone that?
by usmeagle69 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:29:53 PM PDT
I'm voting for Edwards next week, and Clinton is third of my list of the big three candidates.
I want to die like my grandfather, peacefully in my sleep, not screaming in terror like his passengers.
by incertus on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:39:54 PM PDT
...for the legal questions to be reviewed...I'm not "condoning" a candidate.
by Iddybud on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:40:06 PM PDT
the timing of the lawsuit. I have no idea why, but you're refusing to acknowledge the ramifications of this lawsuit. If there's a legitimate issue at stake, then it was at stake months ago, and that makes this lawsuit stink. Don't hide behind "legal questions" and act like the timing of the suit is irrelevant.
by incertus on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:42:36 PM PDT
..and waiting for the court's decision would seem rational. Ramifications will be judged by the individual, of course. I have no dog in the fight. I'm sad that Nevada Labor's split this way. I don't blame the candidates or their campaigns for this arising question of law.
by Iddybud on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:45:41 PM PDT
by incertus on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:47:54 PM PDT
A long-time Edwards supporter,.
by Iddybud on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:58:31 PM PDT
see the suit. The date of the document is ten months from now. There are some problems for the party on that -- and it seems that the plan was changed so many times that it is hard for us to know just when Nevadans ought to have known how it finally turned out, whenever that was.
The judge could look at the fraudulent date of September 2008 on the document and rule that is when it goes into effect!
by Cream City on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 03:55:36 PM PDT
over the Nevada suit.
I just happen to believe that the timing of the suit suggests it is at least being done for her benefit, by her surrogates (whether she directed them to do this is pure speculation).
I took exception with your suggestion that this diary's main focus was the Nevada suit, not the people that would surround a Hillary should she win the Presidency.
Again, the suit was just used to illustrate a larger point in the diary, it wasn't the point.
by cato on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:32:41 PM PDT
I think I made it clear.
by Iddybud on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:40:48 PM PDT
by cato on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:31:21 PM PDT
b/w labor factions in Nevada...that's ridiculous. This plan was accepted and approved and not even Clinton had a problem with it, until the Obama endorsement...now, this close to the day, she's trying to change the rules.
This isn't a power struggle b/w Labor. This is Hillary Clinton and her husband trying to manipulate an election outcome. It's disgraceful.
by usmeagle69 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:27:11 PM PDT
..and yes, this IS a power struggle between labor factions and their workers who are all looking to maximize their ability to get to the polls to support ther chosen candidate.
by Iddybud on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:46:41 PM PDT
this was decided months ago, and everyone was in agreement. Labor didn't have a problem with this then. They chose, at this moment, just days before the caucus, to whine and file a lawsuit. That's not a legal question or a legal situation. The arrangement was deemed acceptable. This is, without a shadow of a doubt, an attempt to manipulate the election outcome. It's disgraceful.
by usmeagle69 on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 02:31:38 PM PDT
'diary about' = major_premise_of_diary
that's not true. though the Nevada suit was brought forth as supporting evidence, this diary is clearly about a class struggle within the party. on one side is the old guard Beltway consultant class, led by the likes of TMac, Penn, Al From and their ilk. On the other side: the majority of us, and the state party organizations.
at stake:
given your fealty to the Clinton campaign, it's little surprise that you've tried to obscure the real point.
Obesa cantavit
by wystler on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:31:33 PM PDT
...which are quite complicated. The conversation, if you'll recall, started HERE.
by Iddybud on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:48:22 PM PDT
I'm a very strong and long-time Edwards supporter.
by Iddybud on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:52:55 PM PDT
There has been a concerted effort to portray Iddybud's interest in the lawsuit as obscuring the main point, namely the timing of the suit.
Soooo, the fact that there are legal grounds to file a suit on fair access is secondary to the nefarious underhanded manner in which it was filed.
Welcome to the big leagues guys. Laws exist to right wrongs and enforce fairness. I don't find lawsuits unconscionable.
Platform over platitudes. Actions over image.
by Rooktoven on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:52:57 PM PDT
Obama is so opposed to them, why is he running on their rhetoric. To be sure, I will be voting for John Edwards, who's rhetoric is anti-DLC.
Support Heather Ryan in Kentucky's First!! http://www.actblue.com/page/americansforryan
by RDemocrat on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:32:04 AM PDT
expand the comment. What DLC rhetoric is Obama running on?
by Nick A on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:39:42 AM PDT
by h bridges on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:07:41 PM PDT
possible for a candidate to campaign on "I will not work with Republicans"? Even Edwards is more reasonable than that. His take is more like "I will not work with Republicans who...." or "I will not work with Republicans unless..."
by nolalily on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:29:25 PM PDT
then George W. Bush is a DLCer. Remember "I'm a uniter, not a divider"?
by incertus on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:44:54 PM PDT
just responding to the query about DLC rhetoric.
by h bridges on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:07:51 PM PDT
there's a big difference between centrism and inclusivity. Just chill out, would you? I'm not against Edwards, and I've never said a bad word about him.
Head to Heading Left, BlogTalkRadio's progressive radio site!
by thereisnospoon on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:46:52 AM PDT
when one cannot make a distinction between the two. Remember how Kerry was criticized by opponents for being "too nuanced?" I've noticed quite a few people on this site failing to make the distinction between centerism and the invitation to be included that Obama brings. Call it nuance or willful ignorance not to see it, Obama has plenty of credibility on progressive issues as far as I'm concerned.
There has to be an invisible sun / That gives us hope when the whole day's done -Police
by rightiswrong on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:59:26 AM PDT
just look at the voting record...
by thereisnospoon on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:14:45 PM PDT
I believe that there are those here and elsewhere that are so blinded by their loyalty to their candidate that they can not see the underlying issues that are just as important or in some cases more important regarding where the party is headed.
Thank you for a great another diary.
I am beginning to feel like a man with no country. That country died when we failed to stand up for what is right.
by eaglecries on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:40:51 PM PDT
How do you define the terms "inclusive" and "centrist"?
What could an inclusive president achieve that a centrist one could not?
"History is not a procession of illustrious people. It's about what happens to a people. Millions of anonymous people is what history is about."James Baldwin
by tiredntexas on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:26:45 PM PDT
he's on her campaign. He talks to the media on her behalf.
This is most definitely about Terry and all his friends.
by thereisnospoon on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:45:24 AM PDT
Big time, then wrote a book about how all of his mistakes were, in fact, Kerry's mistakes. (like making the Dem convention 5 weeks before the GOP's, leaving the campaign high and dry in August, with little money to spend)
The point you miss, thereisnospoon, is that it didn't actually matter all that much to the Clintons who the 2004 nominee was. They weren't going to win; that would ruin Hillary2008's dreams. Killing off Dean was their minor battle; making sure NO NOMINEE won the General was the war. Sorry, when you add up all the evidence, that's what it looks like to me.
John Kerry: "The rubber stamp Republicans have now become the Roadblock Republicans"
by beachmom on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:07:08 PM PDT
I would walk through fire for Howard Dean. But whoever gets the nomination is going to put their own person in as chair of the DNC. That's how it works.
by Historical Pessimist on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:23:04 PM PDT
but the question becomes, will the hard work and initiatives brought by Dr. Dean be carried on with the new guard?
it's pretty damned clear what group travels with HRC. the 50-state strategy would be retired.
i'd trust virtually any other Dem who's still running for president to appoint a chairperson that supports the current initiatives.
the differences couldn't be more stark
by wystler on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:37:10 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 920 comments