Does the vote suppression attempt in NV change your view of Clinton?
Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:56:31 PM PDT
By now, I hope most Kossacks are aware of what is going on in Nevada. ABC News has a good rundown here.
In March 2007, the Nevada Democratic Party set up procedures for its Jan. 19 caucuses that ALL PARTIES agreed to, including supporters of Hillary Clinton. The idea of holding the caucus on a Saturday was to make it easier on most people to vote. The one obvious exception was hospitality workers on the Vegas Strip, who are at their busiest on Saturday. So for them special at-large caucus sites were arranged since they would not be able to go home to vote. Again, ALL SIDES agreed to this and there weren't any objections until Jan. 9.
On Jan. 9, the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Barack Obama. Two days later, leaders of the local Teachers Union who had personally endorsed Hillary Clinton (although the union itself had not officially done so) filed suit to try to remove the at-large caucus sites, potentially disenfranchising thousands of hotel and casino workers.
Asked about the situation, Hillary Clinton said:
I know about the lawsuit that has been filed and I hope that it can be resolved by the courts and by the state party because obviously we want as many people as possible to be able to participate that is the whole idea.
This is NOT obvious to me since I'm sure this lawsuit would be called off in an instant if Hillary asked her allies who filed it to stop -- something she has been careful NOT to do. (Again, this issue WAS "resolved" 10 months ago, with the approval of all involved.)
This is the same Hillary Clinton who was VERY concerned about how people might have been disenfranchised in Iowa:
"You have a limited period of time on one day to have your voices heard," Clinton said after her Iowa caucus loss.... "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."
In light of the current situation, I will let others assess the sincerity of her concern.
There are those on this site who will use all forms of sophistry to try to defend this indefensible, nakedly Rove-Republican attempt at voter disenfranchisement. However, I have to think after all we've been through in the last 8 years these tactics turn most progressives' stomachs.
So I would like to get a sense of just how this is playing in our community. Please vote in the poll below, and if you would like to get a decent sample size on the poll, please consider recommending so the Monday morning crowd gets their chance to weigh in.
P.S. If anything, I think I've given Hillary the benefit of the doubt in my recounting of this story. Many here have suggested that her campaign was likely behind the suit, using her supporters in Nevada to do it for them to give her plausible deniability (and allowing her not to have to expend campaign funds on the suit). If true, this would hardly be the first time Hillary has used "surrogates" to do her dirty work for her, as Bob Johnson notes in his current recommended diary.
Permalink | 84 comments