Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Oh, the Hypocrisy


The more I read the more I'm positive, just POSITIVE, that Hillary Rodham Clinton is the antichrist.

Posted by Michigan Matt | January 13, 2008 10:19 AM

No. The teachers' unions are saying there shouldn't be one single kind of workplace that allows workplace caucus locations -- they should be equally available to all. It's about having the same rules for all kinds of workers.

And, no, the effort made on this was not by the Clinton campaign.

Just like that antigay singer who hates gay marriage is not part of the OBama campaign.

And yes, HRC's got it right, caucuses limit voting.

Meanwhile if you want to see unfiltered HRC she's on Meet The Press.

Posted by unPC | January 13, 2008 10:23 AM

Yeah, before this, I felt I could be enthusiastic about the Dem nominee no matter who won, but now, more and more, I want Obama to take this so this kind of dirty politics doesn't get rewarded.

@2 If she wasn't behind it, she would ask her allies to stop.

Posted by Gitai | January 13, 2008 10:25 AM

Wizzle is up wit this?
When I think of Nevada, I WANT a Pizzy convention!!

Posted by Edutainment sucka | January 13, 2008 10:26 AM

@2: Are you watching? HRC must be cursing Bill and his "fairy tale" right now--the entire show so far has been about Obama and her Iraq war vote. She's sounding positively embattled.

Posted by annie | January 13, 2008 10:38 AM

@2, @5

She is looking irritated, she turned positively white when they showed her speech in 2002, and then showed Obama's position that same week. He clearly had the foresight and understanding of the situation at that time. She was furious with Tim Russert for showing that.

How many times did she say "You know we need to put this in context, and Tim kept asking her about making a decision at that time, and that everyone had years to refine and "gain" experience on what "should" have been done.

Isn't she running on having the "experpience" and "wisdom" on how best to run the country?

Ohh... except in this case. We need to keep her positions "in context"

Nice Hillary. You sound like you are two faced and will say whatever gets you your way at the moment.

Anyone else pickup on her inconsistencies?

Posted by Reality Check | January 13, 2008 10:46 AM

Yup. Am watching. Thought she was great in the beginning, sounded embattled at times but overall seems smart and well informed and well prepared. On the whole she's got the better of Tim. He didn't really "get" her on anything and she answered about Bill's comments pretty specifically. She stood up to Tim when he played a short snippet of Bill taking him out of context.
I thought her answer on how Obama gave one speech in 2002 then shut up took it off his web site came to the US SEante and mainly voted just like HRC a pretty effective rebuttal to his basing his campaign on that one speech.

I do not find it unattractive to see a fighter.

And yes, Obama is uplifting/inspiring etc. And yes she just "cackled" again --ohmygod how could we vote for a cackler!!!!!!!

I didn't hear the quote where Obama supposedly compared himself to JFK and MLK -- if he really did, it's a stretch.

Isn't it.

Posted by unPC | January 13, 2008 10:48 AM

Ooh, now they're talking about this thing. "I don't want to disenfranchise anybody!" This is not a winner.

Posted by annie | January 13, 2008 10:52 AM

The Clinton campaign is taking all the smear machine and voter suppression techniques from the Rove playbook. It's breathtaking.

To some extent they're right that this is 'revenge' for what Republicans have done, but at what point does it become such standard procedure for you that it becomes part of who you are as a politician?

Posted by MHD | January 13, 2008 10:55 AM

MHD, you appear to be quoting someone when you say "they're right that this is 'revenge' for what Republicans have done."

Is that an actual quote ? From who?

Or is it you "quoting" you?

It's a pretty important thing for people to know.

Posted by unPC | January 13, 2008 11:09 AM

@7: I'm pretty sure Obama has never compared himself to JFK or MLK--though, of course, his supporters do routinely. And he does quote MLK ("fierce urgency of now") and invoke JFK (this speech on service) in speeches.

The Iraq thing doesn't bother me in the least. Once we invaded a soverign country and removed its leader, it would have been irresponsible to immediately pull funding and let Iraq collapse. Obama was more than justified in his early Senate votes. It's more irritating to me that HRC voted to authorize a war and is now all about allowing a sectarian conflict to run its destructive course.

Posted by annie | January 13, 2008 11:18 AM

oh, the hypocrisy indeed. doesn't your own quote show that HRC is not involved with this lawsuit?

Posted by josh | January 13, 2008 11:29 AM


agree with you: HRC voted wrong on Iraq war resolution. AS I've said over and over, both have flaws.

Disagree she "now is all about" more destruction in Iraq but have no idea what you are referring to. So, can't really respond to the unsupported unexplained assertion. Maybe you're right? How would we know?

BTW, HRC specifically referred to an Obama speech in which he compared himself to JFK and MLK. Would like to know the truth of that -- by reading the actual quote. Whether misc. sloggers are "pretty sure" Obama didn't compare himself to JFK or MLK isn't that interesting. Sorry. Of course, like you, I was too lazy to try to find it!

PS: tidbit: when Russert demanded she say whether Obama is qualified to be president, she avoided answering. She said the voters have to decide.

Obvious purpose: leave door open to ask Obama to be VP.

The smart answer. Right?

believe it's a bit unfair for him to talk like he was out there waging war against the war at all times.

he voted right, HRC

Posted by unPC | January 13, 2008 11:32 AM

It never really surprised me that the Clinton campaign would resort to Rove-style tactics against Obama:

  1. Having their surrogates refer to Barack Hussein Obama.
  2. Having their surrogates raise the question of whether Obama was a drug dealer.
  3. Sending out a hit-piece mailing suggesting Obama's votes in the Illinois state legislator, directed by Planned Parenthood, showed he wasn't sufficiently pro-choice.

Nor has it ever really surprised me that Hillary Clinton has cultivated this Romney-esque ability to morph her positions according to political calculation:

  1. She was pro-Iraq War when it was popular, then she became anti-Iraq War when that was popular. And now Bill Clinton has the nerve to lie that it's a "fairy tale" that Obama's and Hillary's positions on the war ever differed.
  2. She had the nerve to say at the New Hampshire debate: " I'm running on having taken on the drug companies and the health insurance companies." Meanwhile, she has taken huge contributions from the drug and health insurance companies. (See Michael Moore's "Sicko.")
  3. If she wants to cast herself as a key player in the Clinton administration, then she's been all pro-NAFTA and free trade for a while. Now, you can hardly get a word out of her mouth on trade issues that doesn't sound like it's been focus-grouped with the average Lou Dobbs viewer.

No, it's never really surprised me that the Clinton campaign and Hillary herself have powerful strands of the Rove and Romney Republican DNA. But this story about trying to block the casino precincts does surprise me. I never thought they could stoop this low.

unPC @2 is right to say that this is not a cut-and-dried issue:

The teachers' unions are saying there shouldn't be one single kind of workplace that allows workplace caucus locations -- they should be equally available to all. It's about having the same rules for all kinds of workers.

And yet, were the Republicans' efforts in Florida and Ohio to disenfranchise voters any more cut-and-dried? Makes you appreciate all the more our own state's Secretary of State Sam Reed for refusing to manipulate the 2004 gubernatorial recount process into a victory for Dino Rossi.

Posted by cressona | January 13, 2008 11:34 AM

You guys, claiming that this lawsuit has nothing to do with HRC's campaign is just naive. She may not have explicitly asked them to file the lawsuit, but she certainly could have stopped them from doing so.

Posted by annie | January 13, 2008 11:39 AM

Annie @15:

You guys, claiming that this lawsuit has nothing to do with HRC's campaign is just naive. She may not have explicitly asked them to file the lawsuit, but she certainly could have stopped them from doing so.

The irony of this is that the same people who are denying the Clinton campaign has anything to do with this lawsuit would laugh at the assertion that the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign had nothing to do with Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

The other irony of this is that, not only could the Clinton campaign have stopped this lawsuit, it should have stopped this lawsuit for its own sake.

This lawsuit could very well backfire and be the thing that hands Nevada to Obama. Y'know, in politics as in war, you have such a thing as blowback, the law of unintended consequences.

The Democratic Party may be getting more and more upscale, but Democratic presidential contests are not won and lost on the votes of upscale voters. They're won and lost on the votes of working class voters. Obama has the opportunity to turn Hillary's "I'm the champion of the working class" theme on its head, to turn one of her strengths into a weakness. Simply put, if she cares so much about working folks, then why are her campaign's stand-ins trying to prevent working folks from voting?

Posted by cressona | January 13, 2008 11:45 AM

She's right. The caucus system DOES disinfranchise people. It disinfranchises the very people you are hoping to win your Sexy, Sexy Barista contest. Millions of people work on Saturday (Retail especially. Wal-Mart alone employs over a million people)and cannot make it their caucus. Not everyone can call in sick or rearrange their schedules (who would fill in for them? Everyone's supposed to be at the caucus!). I'm sure you can proxy somehow, but please. Proxies are totally confusing and a pain in the ass.

Also, the caucuses disinfranchise introverts and people who would rather not shout their political preferences to everyone. Imagine if you live in a small community that mainly votes Republican. You are not going to be caught dead at the Democratic caucus. Let's say you hate talking and haggling in big groups? Let's say you hate crowds. All of these things are keeping people away from their caucus.

I can't wait until we have some online way to caucus so everyone can participate.

Posted by la | January 13, 2008 11:51 AM

No. The teachers' unions are saying there shouldn't be one single kind of workplace that allows workplace caucus locations -- they should be equally available to all. It's about having the same rules for all kinds of workers.

The teachers' union and everyone else who doesn't work at a casino already got their accomodation - the caucus is being held on a Saturday.

Unfortuantely, this is one of the busiest days of the week for casino workers so the Nevada State Dems came up with the at-large locations so that they don't get screwed and can still participate.

Posted by RU Shur | January 13, 2008 12:04 PM

I'm surprised she'd take this on. I'm completely unconvinced she'd be motivated here by anything other than self-interest. And yet it seems like the caucus system could help her, too - caucuses are also more favorable to elderly retirees, who have more flexible schedules and would disproportionately favor Hillary.

Posted by tsm | January 13, 2008 12:14 PM

@7 Are we watching the same performance?


Sorry that is just you trying to put a positive spin on a horrible interview on HRC's part.

She was defensive, tried to spin and control the direction of the questions, refused to answer Russert so many times it was dizzying, and generally showed her true colors as a slick politician.

Nice attempt at spinning though....

Posted by Reality Check | January 13, 2008 12:42 PM

Nevada has like, what, three electoral votes? Who gives a shit who wins Nevada?

Posted by Callie Fornicate | January 13, 2008 12:51 PM

He never compared himself to MLK.
NH debate, everybody gets asked about change. H talks about how she's accomplished change, talks about words vs. actions, denigrates former at expense of latter.
O defends words, says they have power to start change, cites MLK among others.
H continues on this theme, drawing contrast between MLK and LBJ, it takes a president, [not a village] [not wordsmiths] etc.

And now, on Meet the Press, she is trying to say that she meant MLK as someone of action, you know, like her. When the MLK/LBJ quote clearly was contrasting the two. MLK is not a president, you see.

But of course O could be one. He can sign a law AND speak. Without alienating people right and left.

Posted by Phoebe | January 13, 2008 1:12 PM

I wonder how many caucuses take place in schools. Mine does. Nice workplace advantage for the teachers.

Posted by kk | January 13, 2008 1:59 PM

Christ, as a teacher's union guy this kind of stuff just drives me nuts.

If the Nevada Education Association has enough money to be wasting their members' dues on this, then they have too much money.

Posted by Ryan | January 13, 2008 3:35 PM

No, Annie, Hillary's right. I'm no Hillary fan either, but she's right on.

The caucus shuts out all but the well connected, well to do political diehards and their voices... ONLY their voices. All that crap about proxies is merely symbolic. Whoever's doing the actual participating gets the last word. Everyone else is shut out.

Posted by Gomez | January 13, 2008 4:23 PM

Well, I kind of like caucuses because of the grassroots organizing they encourage. And I think the parties have a right to nominate candidates using whatever method they deem appropriate--you're still going to get your mail-in ballot (perfect for shut-ins!) during the general election. But even if you think caucuses disenfranchise voters, the fact is, shutting down caucus locations because you don't like the candidate they're likely to go for further disenfranchises voters. How can that possibly be the right thing to do?

Posted by annie | January 13, 2008 4:38 PM

The good thing about the caucus system is it's kind of like IRV - you can have a second or third choice if your candidate has too little support (15 percent), thus meaning you get to switch to your second and possibly third choice.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 13, 2008 4:44 PM
"The union, which has not endorsed a candidate, has some leaders who individually support Clinton. It is using a law firm with at least one prominent lawyer who backs Clinton."

i'm sure some of the other teachers in that union support other candidates, just as i'm sure the other attorneys at that law firm support other candidates. i bet, given just about any group of people, you could find some hillary supporters and some obama supporters. i don't think that means the group is for hillary or obama.

Posted by kim | January 13, 2008 5:20 PM

annie if they had set up the caucuses in gated communities or security buildings that made minorities uncomfortable, would it be ok for the NAACP sue to move them?

i'm not sure that HRC could have stopped the suit as interest groups are not always controlled by the candidate. i'd guess this is more of a turf war between unions.

btw - i'm not supporting HRC at this time but find your rants against her moving me in her direction - i don't see your rants helping to getting a no Republican in the WH in 2008.

Posted by whatever | January 13, 2008 5:25 PM

Ryan @ 24 -- As a "teacher's union guy", presumably you realize NV's NEA afiliate NSEA rep's not just teachers, but education support professionals -- including tech's, security, custodians, etc who may be required at work on caucus Saturday (schools are popular caucus sites) .... making it impossible for them to participate their own precinct caucuses.

You might also expect an education union to stand against a backroom deal that gave members of a larger, more powerful union ten times your delegate weight per member. (Actually more than ten times, since the hotel workers are delegate-weighted twice - once where they live, and again where they work).

And you might have a little extra motivation if you knew that the other, larger union helped kill an education funding proposal that would have taxed their employers.

Posted by RonK, Seattle | January 13, 2008 5:34 PM

I'm sure the teachers union would have complained about this a year ago instead of waiting until right after the casino workers endorsed Obama if they had realized how disingenuous it looks. Maybe that just shows how committed they are to justice, that they never give a second's thought to appearances.

When was the last time I saw such altruism? Oh I remember. It was when Laurelhurst was willing to catch any amount of flack in order to gift neighborhoods far (very far) from Laurelhurst with much needed children's hospital facilities.

It's so sad that being noble and pure of heart sometimes looks so selfish.

Posted by elenchos | January 13, 2008 6:41 PM

Take this with a grain of salt, please, and recognize that Obama supporters (I'm not sure about the candidate himself, so I cannot make an assertion about how he views them), as well as many other Americans who are not Clinton supporters have criticized the caucus system for the way that it disadvantages those who work or are otherwise legitimately occupied during that time period. Not all people are able to secure a proxy, and not all caucus states have proxy laws. I know for a fact that multiple campaigns cited that the caucus system can be disenfranchising to certain people as the reason that they provided child care and rides for those wishing to attend the caucus in Iowa.

The awesome thing about the caucus system (at least in Iowa, where I'm from) is that they are designed to be a party building experience, where local citizens are able to bring up points and vote on different issues that shape the state and national party platform. In my precinct, and many others which I have heard about, many, if not all of the Obama supporters left the caucus immediately after the count for delegates was taken, conveniently skipping all of the party building activities which they apparently did not feel were worth their time. This violated the entire intention of a caucus and led to many people who genuinely care about the party and not just a particular candidate feeling frustrated and disenfranchised.

So, I can say that frustration with the caucus system in this year is not at all unique.

FURTHERMORE, it is entirely ridiculous to expect that HRC and supporters of her wouldn't have problems with caucuses being held at a location which offers an incredible benefit to a union endorsing a rival candidate's supporters. I don't see any problem with raising legitimate concerns about the ethics of caucusing in a casino when the Culinary Workers Union- which was born and bred in the casinos of Vegas- have endorsed a particular candidate. It's not trying to prevent people from caucusing (it's not voting, it's caucusing), it's trying to prevent caucusing from happening in an unfair way. When you give an unfair advantage to a group of people, it is unfair. That's how "fairness" works. It's ridiculous of you to try to paint it as some sort of voter fraud. If there's not an unbalance favoring Obama inherent in the situation, why would you be irritated about them moving the location?

What I don't think is rational is being pissed that unions supporting HRC- organizations who genuinely believe that she can, and will, do what is best for them and this country- are upset at the casino caucus locations.

Posted by Sara | January 13, 2008 9:16 PM

Have we always had a caucus here? I thought we had a primary? I'm confused.

Posted by Blacksheep | January 13, 2008 10:02 PM

The caucus is perhaps the messiest form of democracy ever invented or promulgated upon a naive citizenry. If prom queens were nominated this way, caucuses would go the way of buggy whips. What I envision in King County is that the Obama-lites will hijack the process just as the Kerry-lites did here in 2004. Don't doubt it - this is a case where he who shouts the loudest wins.

Posted by COLD CAUCUS | January 13, 2008 10:45 PM


I happen to share in the frustration with the caucus system, but am planning on going anyway, if there's any point after 2/5.

That said, you seem to be missing several points about the lawsuit over the caucus locations. These places have been known about for several months, if not a year or more. Nobody saw reason enough to complain about these locations for any reason until the Culinary Union endorsed Obama. By all appearances, there wouldn't be a lawsuit, attempting to prevent people from caucusing, if not for the endorsement. And you can bet your ass that there wouldn't be a lawsuit if the endorsement went the other way either.

How is it fair to try to prevent people from caucusing only when you don't think those people will stand for your candidate? It may not be fraud (and you're the only one suggesting it), but it is highly disingenuous.

Posted by Mike of Renton | January 13, 2008 11:05 PM

I fundamentally believe that if the situation was reversed, Obama supporters would be backing the lawsuit.

I'm well aware that the locations have been known for several months. What YOU and many others seem to be ignoring is that until the Culinary Union endorsed Obama, there wasn't an inherent conflict of interest in the caucuses being held there.

It's not an issue of preventing people from caucusing- it's an issue of making it INHERENT EASIER for certain groups of people to caucus- when those individuals have a significantly large union which has endorsed a particular candidate, it presents a conflict of interest which is, itself "highly disingenuous".

Posted by Sara | January 13, 2008 11:36 PM

So Sara, first the locations were chosen - ages ago, then the culinary workers endorsed, very recently, and right after that Clinton's people wanted to shut them out. And you say, based on no evidence, that if situations were reversed Obama would be backing the lawsuit? The lawsuit would not have been filed by the Clinton supporters to begin with, had the culinary workers chosen her. That's what they were waiting for, obviously, given the timing. If you think that the culinary workers have unfair advantage with the caucus sites, well that was true all along, right? This disenfranchisement is not remotely principled on Clinton's part, but opportunistic only.

Posted by Phoebe | January 14, 2008 2:13 AM

Again, everyone who doesn't work on the Strip got their consideration when the caucuses were scheduled on a frackin' *Saturday morning*!

The At-Large locations are a way of unscrewing one of the largest contingent of works in the state so they can caucus on their busiest day of the week. This isn't an "unfair advantage"; it's trying to balance out an acute *disadvantage*.

Posted by RU Shur | January 14, 2008 9:36 AM

@33: We have a caucus and a primary. On the Democratic side, the primary doesn't count and the caucus counts. On the Republican side, both the primary and the caucus count but the primary counts slightly more.

Posted by annie | January 14, 2008 9:43 AM

#33 we have had a caucus for a long, long time if not from the beginning of statehood while the primary is brand new.

Posted by whatever | January 14, 2008 10:16 AM

26. That doesn't really change the main point that the caucus system is inherently limiting and flawed. Some people don't have the time and resources to 'get involved'.

Posted by Gomez | January 14, 2008 10:39 AM

unPC @10,

I'm not quoting anyone, I'm using quotation marks to indicate that revenge would be an odd way to put it, since the tactics are being used not on Republicans but a Democratic candidate that's run a pretty clean campaign.

At any rate, that sentence was attempt to give the Clintons a little bit of credit: the other explanation is that they're Karl Rove-type douchebags. If you don't like the Republican-revenge explanation and prefer the above, that's fine with me; I'm not sure there's a functional difference anyway.

Posted by MHD | January 14, 2008 11:56 AM

Where are the Wal Mart and Target caucuses being held?

Posted by tiptoe tommy | January 14, 2008 1:16 PM

RonK @ 30

Ryan @ 24 -- As a "teacher's union guy", presumably you realize NV's NEA afiliate NSEA rep's not just teachers, but education support professionals -- including tech's, security, custodians, etc who may be required at work on caucus Saturday (schools are popular caucus sites) .... making it impossible for them to participate their own precinct caucuses.

Oh noes! Thousands of tech's (sic, Ron K is probably a member of the NEA, hence the incorrect apostrophe on the plural), security workers, custodians, etc will have to work on Saturday morning thus disenfranchising them. Teh horror! Ron, you're full of shit, really, you are. Most schools are completely closed down on the weekends, which is why they use them for caucuses or voting places. Also just how many people are going to be affected by this? Come on, how many thousands of NSEA personnel are going to be disenfranchised, probably not too many, teachers don't work weekends because schools are closed.

This was a very reasonable attempt to allow casino workers a chance to participate in the Nevada caucus, the only reason the NSEA is against it is because the casino workers aren't bowing down for their candidate.

And you might have a little extra motivation if you knew that the other, larger union helped kill an education funding proposal that would have taxed their employers.

What the fuck does this have to do with anything? Sure, if you're a stupid liberal then you automatically believe that handing more money to public schools will automatically make them better. Those of us who aren't stupid liberals or ass-whores for the teacher's union don't automatically salivate when that particular bell is rung. The NEA and AFT are run by a bunch of corrupt fucks and shitheads who don't care about public education and who are concerned with nothing more than lining their own pockets and what's more Hilary Clinton knows this; why else do you think she sent her daughter to a lily-white private school (Sidwell Friends) when she was First Lady (which, despite what HRC supporters may think, is not co-president)?

Posted by wile_e_quixote | January 14, 2008 1:37 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).