Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Talk and Action


Damn unelected judges. Too bad the Clintonistas couldn't find a way to keep those pesky casino workers away from the caucuses. They're going to have to do better than this if they really want the nomination.

Posted by kk | January 17, 2008 2:56 PM

Wait a minute Eli...I have it directly from Dominic on the Slog that Hillary herself opposed the casino effort- not just that she was kinda sorta in a roundabout couple of degrees of connection connected to people who opposed it- but that she opposed it herself.

Are you trying to white-wash this thing?

Posted by Johnny | January 17, 2008 3:06 PM

from the link:

The Clinton campaign had not taken a formal position on the lawsuit, but several supporters had brought the court action. As he campaigned across Nevada this week, former President Bill Clinton argued about the unfairness of caucusing in casinos.

In a statement on Thursday afternoon, the Clinton campaign expressed disappointment in the ruling.

Posted by brandon | January 17, 2008 3:15 PM

So, Hillary and her campaign have not taken a position. Bill has.

Ok, thank you for clarifying! Last time I trust a stoner ;-)

Posted by Johnny | January 17, 2008 3:19 PM

Voter suppression is a classic Bush administration tactic. Way to go, Clintons! "Change," my ass.

Posted by DOUG. | January 17, 2008 3:20 PM

Obama does lack of experience with voter suppression. And a shared understanding of how to keep voters from the polls gives Hillary some common ground with Republicans that they can build on to work together.

But seriously. The teachers were right: it's only fair to have caucuses only at schools, instead of at the workplace of one particular group, like the casino workers. It would give anyone who works their an inflated political influence, whereas the teachers just wanted it to be a neutral location. At school buildings.

Posted by elenchos | January 17, 2008 3:27 PM

@6 heh. That's good. I almost thought you were serious.

Posted by Mike of Renton | January 17, 2008 3:34 PM

@7 - thanks, I missed the point of #6 completely till I read your comment and re-read the post.

Posted by slow | January 17, 2008 3:40 PM

@6 heh. That's good. I almost thought you were serious.

Posted by Mike of Renton | January 17, 2008 3:41 PM

The spurious rationales that Hillary's supporters make up are hard to distinguish from parody, aren't they?

Posted by elenchos | January 17, 2008 4:03 PM

especially since the nevada caucus is on saturday, and it was the teacher's union that filed the suit. or do they have school on saturdays in nevada?

Posted by brandon | January 17, 2008 4:11 PM

Wow, seriously it seems like the commenters are the ones reaching here. Most definately it makes sense to have caucus at schools or at other government buildings over casinos or other private business.

One issue that immediately springs to mind is that I wouldn't be able to go into the casino due to the cigarette smoke. I am sure others with various ailments might face the same barrier...You know people who might be interested in universal health care of the kind that Obama refuses to support.

Just saying.

Posted by Johnny | January 17, 2008 4:24 PM

@12: The casino caucuses aren't instead of other polling places. They are supplementary and intended for workers who work far from home and would be unable to vote otherwise. These are people who work in casinos. Presumably they are OK with going into casinos.

My favorite part of the whole fiasco is that four the plaintiffs in the suit to block casino caucus locations were on the very panel that decided to implement them, and actually voted *for* them, back in May when Hilary was the favorite.

How hypocritical is that?

Posted by also | January 17, 2008 4:40 PM

@12 It's not like they're having the caucus right on the casino floor. That's like saying they shouldn't have it at schools because someone might fall off the playground equipment.

Posted by Mike of Renton | January 17, 2008 4:45 PM

Yeah, I also love how the teachers' union was pleading concern for the janitors who have to work on saturday - janitors who don't belong to their union, but whatever - when they've had since last March to give a rat's ass about their janitors.

Posted by Phoebe | January 17, 2008 5:02 PM

Watch Bill Clinton spontaneously combust:

you might have to roll over to find the proper video. Look for
"RAW: one on one Q&A with Bill Clinton"

Posted by Phoebe | January 17, 2008 5:05 PM

Lighten up on the Clintons, folks. The Clinton campaign was FINE with caucuses in casinos. It was only after the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Obama that they suddenly became unfair. Sheesh.

Posted by kk | January 17, 2008 6:44 PM

@16 Wow thanks for that.

Ouch. Another example of the Clintonista effect.

I dont think I've ever seen him go off like this before to anyone since he left the Oval Office.

This is some incredible footage.

Thanks for sharing.

Another demerit for HRC. I wonder how many she has left?

Posted by Reality Check | January 17, 2008 8:08 PM

that's pretty rad phoebe, thanks. i love how bill clinton speaks to the press as though people will actually believe a word he says. it's downright adorable.

Posted by brandon | January 17, 2008 8:23 PM

that new Clinton ad may be in a "more emotive tone," but it's still in the same old style. She's still harping on the 35 years and it's still a top-down message: you've got problems and I'll fix them.

Either she or her handlers haven't grasped why Obama is coming across stronger. It may be rhetoric only, but his message brings the audience in. He speaks of "us" and "we" and when he does use "you" it's in a much different way.

She really needs to figure this one out if she's going to escape her big government nanny-state image.

Posted by gnossos | January 17, 2008 11:33 PM

Why does Bill Clinton drink out of a Mason jar?

Posted by DOUG. | January 18, 2008 8:35 AM

Comments Closed

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