Bill & Hillary Clinton & The Nevada Caucus System Lawsuit & Disenfranchising Voters

[EV_Ares]

From The Last Chance Democracy Cafe

This business of the lawsuit in Nevada just sucks. Here’s the skinny for anyone who’s missed it: Nevada is a caucus state, which means, of course, it takes a lot of time for a voter to participate. Since Las Vegas casinos don’t close for elections (or for anything else, for that matter) absent special accommodations thousands of casino workers would have no opportunity to participate. In response, the Nevada Democratic Party adopted a policy creating special “at large” caucus sites at casinos.

Sounds like good old-fashioned Democratic Party inclusiveness doesn’t it? Certainly everyone in the Nevada Democratic Party seemed to agree — at the time. All that changed, however, when the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Barack Obama. Two days later, the state’s teacher’s union (which supports Hillary Clinton) together with several individual Clinton supporters filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent the casino caucuses from being held — a move that if successful would effectively disenfranchise thousands of casino employees, many of them minorities.

Oh, and it turns out that four of the plaintiffs now suing to prevent the casino caucuses were present at the meeting when the plan was approved. And just in case you’re wondering, it was approved unanimously. And if you’ve been harboring any hope (I had been) that this action might have been taken without the approval of the Clinton campaign, you can forget it: Bill Clinton has now publicly endorsed the suit.

From a technical legal standpoint, the Clinton forces probably have a point: the use of at large caucuses may, indeed, tend to run counter to the principle of “one man one vote.” (Although I actually doubt the courts will intervene, since political parties have historically been given a great deal of leeway in such matters.) But screw the legal issues. If the plaintiffs in this lawsuit had a problem with the caucus system they should have raised it in a timely manner. Waiting until after the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Obama to file suit was simply pathetic.

(That the Clinton forces would not now be challenging the caucus system if the union’s endorsement had gone her way is almost too obvious to bother mentioning.) From the standpoint of practical politics, however, there is a certain brutal logic to the move: it’s unquestionably true that once the union endorsed Obama, suppressing votes by the union’s members would be likely to improve Clinton’s chances in Nevada. But to state the obvious – that doesn’t make it right. Clinton should have taken the hit. Disenfranchising voters isn’t a Democratic value — end of story.

And by the way, in terms of the big picture, this was probably also a stupid thing to do politically. I can think of nothing that would be better calculated to turn off the Democratic base than for one of our own candidates to embrace the Bush campaign’s take no prisoners vote suppression tactics from the 2000 election and recount.

The Clinton people should seriously rethink this. Better to lose Nevada than become a pariah within your own party just in time for Super Tuesday.

Link: http://www.lastchancedemocracycafe.com/?p=1201

[MethuenProgressive]

1. Why should some voters get special privileges?

"The Clinton people"? You mean the Teacher's Union who is protesting the special privileges for certain voters - certain voters who are being pressured by Union thugs to vote for Obama or they won't be allowed to caucus at all?

[mckeown1128]

3. Do you have any evidence that voters are being

pressured by Union thugs....or do you always blindly attack unions. It thought unions were a good thing. Those poor teacher's union folks agreed to those polling locations 10 months ago. There is nothing special about them. They are Nevada Democratic Party approved caucus locations.

[MethuenProgressive]

5. "Nobody can go to the caucus unless you’re voting for Obama,”

http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/early-line/2008/jan/16/incident-paris-las-vegas/

On top of that, Angers and DeFalco said, the reps handed Antuna an Obama pledge card, telling her she had to sign it to participate in the caucus and that today was the deadline.

“The lady told all of us: Nobody can go to the caucus unless you’re voting for Obama,” Angers said. “They have no right to do what they did. This is America. You should be able to vote for who you feel like. It doesn’t matter who the union is endorsing. They can try to persuade us but it doesn’t mean people have to vote for them.”

But Antuna tells a different story. She said she was filling out a voter registration form when the union reps approached her about Obama. When she told them she wasn’t sure about caucusing for him, one rep took her registration form, indeed telling her that she couldn’t participate Saturday if she wasn’t supporting Obama.

[mckeown1128]

15. Nice try but you can't trick people here.

You left out the update:

The Culinary Union has investigated and says the source of the drama seemed to be about how one changes one’s party registration three days before the caucus.

Antuna was a registered independent, and the union reps were talking to her about how she had to be a Democrat to participate on Saturday, Weiss said.

Hardly scandalous and certainly not intimidation, she added.

Weiss said she suspects the whole incident was drummed up by the enthusiastic Clinton supporters, who got heated when the union reps started pitching Obama.

and you also left out some of these juicy nuggets from your post:

One key fact: The union reps spoke broken English.

“It’s possible it was a miscommunication,” Antuna said.

In fact, Antuna said the Culinary called her later to inform her the union had received her voter registration form, spoken with her supervisor and that she was clear to caucus during her shift on Saturday.

The Clinton campaign quickly tried to paint the incident as part of a broader pattern, though introduced no other evidence.


nice try though...

[MethuenProgressive]

17. You believe the denial by the Union Head who endorsed Obama?

"The Culinary Union has investigated"
:rofl:
Well, that settles it!

[mckeown1128]

18. Why do you hate unions....or is it

just unions who endorse candidates that you don't like?

[MethuenProgressive]

20. As a Union member for 20+ years, and a shop steward for over 10, I'm as pro-Union as any DUer

What I hate is voter intimidation, which you love as long as it's your candidate benefiting.
Why do you hate Democracy?

[mckeown1128]

21. You have yet to show proof of voter intimidation....

the article in question states several times that it is probably a misunderstanding.

[MethuenProgressive]

28. "Nobody can go to the caucus unless you’re voting for Obama,”

And the Obama supporting Union head blames "broken English"... :eyes:

[mckeown1128]

41. no the clinton supporter who reported the incident blamed

broken english.... geeze did you even read the article.

[indimuse]

16. If it were my union, I'd be pissed.

Not On My Shift
by izarradar, Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 10:00:25 PM EST

I'm a card carrying union gal, a proud member of the striking WGA ("We write. You wrong"). I learned about
respecting the power of the rank and file from my father who taught me never to cross a picket line, and from my own days of walking a line I learned to love the rank and file as brothers and sisters. So every time a union endorses a candidate I pay special attention because I value the voices of union members.

Senator Obama received an important endorsement the day after he lost the New Hamphire primary. The Culinary Workers Local 226 in Nevada announced that he was their candidate of choice. I was impressed by the endorsement, and respectful of the 60,000 hard-working men and women who voted for it. The rank and file had spoken, and Obama was their man, I thought.

Turns out I was wrong.



Unions use various ways to decide upon an endorsement. Sometimes it's a questionnaire, or maybe a ballot. Other times it evolves out of meetings. In most unions, the leadership will have the final say, but not before consulting with the rank and file. This isn't the process the Culinary Workers Local 226 used to make its endorsement of Senator Obama. The rank and file wasn't involved in the decision at all.

And now members are pissed.

Channel 8, Eyewitness Now reported from Las Vegas, NV (1/11/08):

http://www.lasvegasnow.com:80/...

Eve Berkstresser is one of more than 60,000 culinary union members statewide. She and a handful of others picketing said they disagree with how the union leaders chose to endorse Senator Barack Obama for president.

"They shouldn't be endorsing anyone unless the members have a chance to speak. But they haven't done that. They did it on their own," said Berkstresser.

The statement from Culinary Staff Director Ted Pappageorge was this:

"Our members have always had their favorites -- we all do. But in the end our members understand about division and weakness and unity and strength," said Pappageorge.

I'm not sure exactly what that means, are you? More importantly, I'm not sure the rank and file understands what that means. But did Pappageorge include the membership in this decision by taking a vote?

While the union leadership says they believe their members are unified in the decision, they told us they did not poll their membership.

So excuse me, I don't want to jump to conclusions (unlike Pappageorge jumping to conclusions about his rank and file), but are they basing this endorsement on what? Some crystal ball? Tea leaves perhaps? Tossing a coin? Call me old-fashioned, but when you want to know what your membership is thinking on something as important as who should be President, shouldn't you simply print up ballots and let EVERYONE have a voice?

What's the big deal, you might ask? The union leadership can't force a member to honor the endorsement of Senator Obama. If a member wants to vote for John Edwards, or Senator Clinton, they're free to do so. This is a democracy, right? The secret ballot protects our identity and our choice.

Well, that's a problem.

This is an open caucus. Union members will be standing in the same room with other union members. Or maybe even their shop steward. Or their foreman. Or possibly even a union official. Everyone will know which candidate you're backing. And if you're a member of Culinary Workers Local 226, and you don't caucus for Senator Obama???

That could make for a long shift on Monday.

If it were my union, I'd be pissed. And I'd use my voice to let the union officials know it. You don't pay union dues for this kind of forced intimidation. I'd let my brothers and sisters of the rank and file know this: I won't tolerate political bullying.

Not on my shift.

[cloudythescribbler]

47. EVEN IF you assume the facts as Methuen does, he is misusing this incident

The fact that there might be one instance of improper behavior by one low level individual unconnected to Obama or his campaign organization is CLEARLY not a valid basis upon which to evaluate the whole caucus system. It's like taking ONE instance of a voter screwup (eg the count in one county doesn't match whatever) ONE THAT DOES NOT COME REMOTELY CLOSE TO DETERMINING ELECTION OUTCOME (eg not Ohio 04), and using that to discredit the idea of elections per se.

People aren't perfect. Democracy isn't designed for an electorate (including people rounding up voters for caucuses) that is perfect. One might criticize the WHOLE caucus system on many grounds (not just that it takes longer than voting but it requires people's actions to be time-coordinated, in a world not suited to that) but this incident is not one of them -- and it is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the lawsuit.

As for the merits of the lawsuit, there is NO indication that 'one group' of workers were selected out for special treatment. In Reno, where the logistics of voting are different from on 'the strip' (apparently -- I am a MA resident who has never been to Las Vegas). The strip has ENORMOUS concentrations of workers, not just "casino workers" and is incredibly busy on a Saturday, and renders it basically impossible to conveniently commute back to one's home neighborhood and back. Remember also that anyone working within TWO AND A HALF MILES of the strip can vote there.

It should also be noted that NONE of the people who have challenged this arrangement said PEEP for nine months (when there was time to meet any valid and bona fide objections). It is obviously a political ploy, one that the truly faithful ('my candidate, disenfranchising or not') are apt to support.

As for the Nevada courts, after their reversing themselves and letting MSNBC exclude Kucinich, I have no more faith in them than in the US federal courts -- which in my experience have turned out to be nothing more than a vicious political machine.

[mod mom]

8. "several of the parties to the suit were there and approved of the process."

"several of the parties to the suit were there and approved of the process."

More: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?bid=7&pid=270073

The goal of the Democratic Party should be to encourage more folks to vote and open access to all those who do. Read this article at The Nation and read Sen Kerry's article at TPM. These folks involved in the suit were fully aware and could have done the same for their members. They remained silent until they found out the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Obama-then cried foul. It's shameful! There a thread here posted containing the names of teachers who support the culinary workers right to access to vote. They said what their union leaders (read HRC supporters) was attempting to limit access to working. These folks behind the suit SHOULD BE ASHAMED!

[MethuenProgressive]

14. Right.... because they support Obama they should have a better chance at caucusing than all others.

"They said what their union leaders (read HRC supporters) was attempting to limit access to working."
The Union leaders who endorsed Obama without consulting the Union members are "HRC supporters"?
Link?

[mod mom]

36. the Nevada State Education Association – with ties to the Clinton campaign in its leadership

I gave you a link...The Nation.

Although Teachers have come out in protest of their union's attempted disenfranchisement.

[rateyes]

10. Isn't holding the Caucus on a Saturday, making it easier

for teachers to get to the Caucuses a special privilege for them over the Culinary Workers?

The more participation, the better. Why did the NEA (a union I used to be a member of, and which I still like very much) wait until the last minute to file this suit? Would they have filed it had the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Clinton? And, what made the four plaintiffs who voted FOR these precincts to be established all of a sudden change their minds?

Shame on the NEA. Shame on Bill Clinton for endorsing this lawsuit.

If you can't see the politics behind this, then you are blinded by your partisanship.

BTW, I'm not voting for Obama or Clinton.

[OHdem10]

2. I hear you can only caucus at the Casinos if you are for

Obama. If you are a Culinary Union Member and wish to vote
for someone else you have to leave the site. Union showing
power????

[mckeown1128]

4. you "hear"....

please provide a link to your baseless claim.

[MethuenProgressive]

6. That's the report from the Las Vegas Sun:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/early-line/2008/jan/16/incident-paris-las-vegas/

[rateyes]

12. That's just bullshit. That cannot legally be done, and if

someone is intimidating a caucus goer like that, he/she should be sued. A suit, I assure you, the plaintiff would win.

[elixir]

43. But in the meantime that caucusgoer will do whatever they can to keep their job n/t

[rateyes]

46. They belong to the union, but they are employed by the casinos...

how the hell can the union fire them?

Give me a damned break. Geeeeez.

[elixir]

51. Oh, right...so the union doesn't care how they caucus?! Give me a break!

[Jai4WKC08]

53. Don't know much about unions, do you?

The union can usually get a worker fired if they want to. They can also make the work place very unpleasant. And lets face it, most people will go to great pains to avoid pissing off their co-workers.

It doesn't take much to keep folks in line.

[babylonsister]

23. That's a bunch of crap most likely put out by Clinton supporters that's been debunked:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4092914&mesg_id=4092921

[Cameron27]

38. You keep saying that it's been debunked

when in fact, it hasn't been debunked. Weiss is head of the culinary union, and his word shouldn't be taken as fact.

[babylonsister]

39. Gimme a break. Whose word are you waiting for, and the head

of a huge union isn't trustworthy? You are grasping...

[Uben]

7. The unions are the ones disenfranchising

You have to be a member to work in Vegas, and if you don't vote like they want you to, you lose your job. This is not a secret or private vote. You have to stand up in a room and declare your vote, so the unions are disenfranchising voters to vote the way they want. This is a tactic obviously approved by the Obama campaign. And you call that democratic?

[Windy]

9. There is absolutely no back up for your allegations

If a worker chooses to caucus for Clinton or Edwards as opposed Obama, they can do so. What is unfair is that the entire state, many of whom are off on the weekend including the teachers that are pushing this lawsuit have the opportunity to vote. If these onsite caucus locations are not permitted, then thousands will be denied the opportunity. The democrate party in Nevada pushed for this. Now that Clinton is not the selection of the union, its a problem.

There is something rotten about this. It is a republican tactic that Clinton is using to her advantage.

[Uben]

27. You are wrong!

Members can caucus for who they want, but they must do it publicly, in full view of the union officials, who in turn can, and will, retaliate for a vote against their candidate. If they want to lose their job, sure they can vote for who they want. Yoou obviously don't know what you are talking about or do not understand the way caucuses work in Nevada.

Having their members caucus in the casinos keeps them where they can be watched.

If that is what you think is fair and democratic, your views of democracy ARE SEVERELY SKEWED.

Of course, if you are an Obama supporter, this is absolutely fantastic, because members are forced to caucus for Obama or lose their jobs. I, for one, am sick and tired of all strong arm tactics in elections.

Now, explain to me just which part of that is not correct.

[Egnever]

42. Lots wrong about it

First and foremost the unions do not control all the casinos here. Nevada is a right to work state. The culinary union here is big but it does not control every casino. Also the culinary union does not controll all the jobs in any casino far from it. They are a fraction of all jobs in any casino.

Second the whole point in putting these locations up in the first place was because Vegas is a 24/7 town that doesn't shut down for anything in fact it ramps up on the weekends so saturday is the day with more people working at the casino than any other so having the caucuses on saturday in and of itself disenfranchises casino workers disproportionately.

Third having the caucus locations at the casinos ensures that thousands of people that otherwise would have no opportunity to vote get to do so. Also theres thousands of workers in the casinos with absolutely no ties to any unions of any kind. Despite your ignorance of Nevada. Unions are not strong here. The culinary union has a lot of members but they are not nearly as all powerful as you try to make them.

Would it have been fair to hold the caucuses on say tuesday and have disenfranchised all the teachers and office workers? They chose saturday to allow as much participation as possible and had to do something to address the fact that while that helps all the regular 9-5 stiffs it does completely the opposite for the casino workers who are the largest part of our workforce.

You are clearly a clinton tool and also totally ignorant of Nevada demographics or union power here.

[Jai4WKC08]

54. You didn't disprove anything Uben said

So most caucus-goers aren't union members? So what? How many does it take to swing a precinct. 10%? 5%? Maybe only 2%? This race is that close.

Then consider that we're talking about precincts that are "at large" and not tied to residence, so that the union casinos are disproportionately represented by where the caucuses are located.

I understand completely the argument that there should be some sort of accommodation for casino/hotel/etc workers. I don't know that this plan is appropriate. It may be as good as you can get with a caucus, because a caucus is by its nature unfair. I live in a caucus state. My son will not get to go because he's out of state in the military. He's just one of many who are cut out of the process.

But I also understand why the members of the teachers' union feel that a different group is getting an unfair advantage. Their votes really will count for less and you can't expect them to take it laying down, regardless of what was originally agreed to.

And besides, the whole concept of voting based on where you work instead of where you live is a very bad precedent.

As for the fact that the teachers' union didn't bring suit until they thought it would matter to the candidate whom they are backing... welcome to the reality of politics. It takes a while to move on something like this, it takes a while for everyone to realize the impact, and it takes a while for interest to generate. If you think it wouldn't work the same way if the shoe were on the other foot, you're foolin' yourself.

[EV_Ares]

13. with the Cllintons push they are

Senator Clinton has sought to distance herself from the lawsuit, saying the NSEA has not officially endorsed her campaign. In an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday morning she said, “I don’t think it is supporters of mine that have filed the suit.” In a statement, Clinton campaign spokesperson Phil Singer said, “We hope the courts and the state party resolve this matter. We will respect their decision and focus our efforts on running a strong campaign.”

However, the Clinton campaign has clear connections to the lawsuit. The NSEA is employing a law firm—Kummer, Kaempfer, Bonner, Renshaw and Ferrario—that has close ties to the New York senator. An attorney at the firm, former Nevada Democratic congressman James H. Bilbray, has endorsed Clinton and is campaigning for her in the state. Also, NSEA Deputy Executive Director Debbie Cahill was a founding member of Clinton’s Nevada Women’s Leadership Council.

The Obama campaign has been quick to condemn the suit. The senator’s Nevada campaign director, David Cohen, commented, “We believe as a party, and a country, we should be looking for ways to include working men and women in the electoral process, not disenfranchise them

[ShortnFiery]

34. Whoa! "the Clinton campaign has clear connections to the lawsuit. "

:nuke:

[EV_Ares]

37. Yes, yes that is what I said, they are pushing this lawsuit, eom.

[Egnever]

40. Utter horse shit

Nevada is a right to work state and tyhe Union is not all pervasive in the casinos. You dont know WTF you are talking about.

[babylonsister]

11. Rec'd. More proof Clintons have nothing but THEIR best interests at heart. nt

[MethuenProgressive]

19. "Nobody can go to the caucus unless you’re voting for Obama"

It was obvious certain DUers would chime in and approve of this.

[Inuca]

22. This is just plain nonsense

nobody approves of this. In the extremely slim chance that there is some grain of truth to these allegations, it will come out and the perpetrators will be punished, it is illegal. But to claim that this is the official policy of the union is just plain absurd.

[babylonsister]

24. I see they're making it up as they go along. How novel-not! nt

[Evergreen Emerald]

25. Obama is disinfranchising voters:

This is a story that needs investigating. Let's see if DU is as outraged over this.


On top of that, Angers and DeFalco said, the reps handed Antuna an Obama pledge card, telling her she had to sign it to participate in the caucus and that today was the deadline.

“The lady told all of us: Nobody can go to the caucus unless you’re voting for Obama,” Angers said. “They have no right to do what they did. This is America. You should be able to vote for who you feel like. It doesn’t matter who the union is endorsing. They can try to persuade us but it doesn’t mean people have to vote for them.”

But Antuna tells a different story. She said she was filling out a voter registration form when the union reps approached her about Obama. When she told them she wasn’t sure about caucusing for him, one rep took her registration form, indeed telling her that she couldn’t participate Saturday if she wasn’t supporting Obama.

At that point, Antuna said, Angers and DeFalco, who were sitting at a neighboring table, engaged the union rep in a heated discussion. Antuna said she sat silent while both sides swapped words. She doesn’t recall the bit about the pledge cards.

One key fact: The union reps spoke broken English.

“It’s possible it was a miscommunication,” Antuna said.

<snip>

http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/early-line/2008/jan/16... /

[babylonsister]

26. A for effort, but that's been debunked:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4089980&mesg_id=4093044

[MethuenProgressive]

29. Not debunked at all, Obama Surrogate Union Head blames "broken English"

"Nobody can go to the caucus unless you’re voting for Obama,”

[MethuenProgressive]

31. “The lady told all of us: Nobody can go to the caucus unless you’re voting for Obama,”

Why would any DUer can defend voter intimidation?
It shouldn't matter if it's your candidate's henchmen doing the intimidation.

[ShortnFiery]

32. There are direct ties to Clintonian surrogates. How Shameful?!?

[F.Gordon]

45. For different reasons but it's just as believable

In this little game of Kick the Puppy and Internet Post Office this "story" has grown from 'Clinton supporters' to the 'Clinton's wrote, signed, sealed, and delivered the law suit'.
:eyes:

So, I'll play Kick the Puppy. Who's to say that Obama didn't see this Hugh!!111 bonus voting block that got put in the "plan" and negotiated a deal with the Union people?
:shrug:

Has anyone actually seen the plan that the NV State Dems put out? And is it true that at these "at large" cluster fucks you can register days prior to the caucus?

ALL of this stinks.

[ShortnFiery]

30. Proud to be the 5th recommendation. Guess the DLC is taking a page out of the RNC playbook?

The politics of exclusion are alive and well if we choose to emplace The Clintonian DLC *insiders* for a 3rd term within the Executive Branch? :shrug:

[MethuenProgressive]

33. Obama's Union Head Surrogates are DLCers? Link?

“The lady told all of us: Nobody can go to the caucus unless you’re voting for Obama,”

[ShortnFiery]

35. Oh come now, the Brain Trust for the lion's share of the mud slinging resides in Bill's DLC.

;)

[elixir]

44. Although the argument is very convincing something doesn't smell right..

Why would the clinton campaign risk everything for a small portion of the delegates in Nevada? It doesn't make sense! The outcome of Nevada doesn't really have much impact on Super Tuesday and chances are that HRC will have a good showing in Nevada w/ or w/out the culinary caucusgoers. Again, why would a politically savvy and seasoned campaign through their image, respectability and future support in the toilet for a fraction of the 25 Democratic delegates of Nevada???!!!! It just isn't making sense and please don't say something trite or stupid, this is worth a sincere discussion.

[F.Gordon]

49. A sincere discussion?

You'll have to wait on that. Right now there is a plan to dig up Reagan and bring him back to life. I believe there is a thread somewhere asking for donations on this. I'll try to find that link.

You ask some very good questions. I don't think any of us really know what's going on. If you brought Reagan back to life and had him hold a gun to my head I'd "guess" that the larger implication of all this is to get rid of the terrible caucus system.

Problem is... with the * tax cuts (and on edit: the "wonderful economy") many states can't afford to pay for a normal PRIVATE one person - one vote system where union politicing like this would not be allowed.

It all sucks. It's politics. Ain't it grand?
:hi:

[elixir]

50. It truly does suck and totally mystifying why this is going on...

I'll keep reading for a credible explanation.

:hi:

[cloudythescribbler]

48. At least one (minor) fact inaccuracy in the OP

The teachers' union in question has NOT endorsed Hillary Clinton, though a number of high level officers in it ARE HRC supporters. There are also teachers in the union who have publicly and formally expressed their opposition to the suit, and to their union bringing it.

Frankly, if the union had officially endorsed Clinton, it would involve ONE FEWER layers of sleazy manipulation -- people CONTROLLING a union's a filing brazenly partisan suit where they were evidently reluctant to openly try to have the union endorse HRC outright.

[realFedUp]

52. If the Culinary Union had endorsed Hillary instead....

Maybe the Obama supporters would be on the other
side of this argument. Fair or unfair, the strip
caucus sites will be heavily weighted with delegates
who will vote for Obama because they are standing
with their union and fellow workers.

I can understand the rules put into place last year
so these workers could caucus, but the fact is that
the Culinary Worker's backing for one of the candidates
does give that candidate more delegates at the end
of the day.

I imagine Edwards is enjoying the benefit of media and bloggers
reporting inaccuracies between Obama and Clinton.