Obama's disenfranchisement of teachers and custodians will probably bring him even with Clinton now

[Proud2BAmurkin]

Clinton's advantage is probably gone in NV thanks to Obama's "one man, five votes" policy but Super Tuesday is going to be "it."

[Renew Deal]

1. Blame it on Rory Reid

He approved it.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

2. Obama liked it too. eom

[NYCGirl]

3. But doesn't Rory Reid work for the Clintons? NT

[madrchsod]

15. please don`t confuse me with the facts

i thought it was ok then it was was`t now nobody knows...i`m totally confused.

funny, RENO 911 the episode where they lost the vote on their pay raise...

[Renew Deal]

7. So does the law.

Case Dismissed

[Proud2BAmurkin]

10. The law liked Bush in Bush v Gore too. "Case dismissed"

[Renew Deal]

28. So you agree with me?

Great!

[babylonsister]

4. Go away. Your sour grapes smell rotten.

[polichick]

5. Why didn't Clinton complain about it last fall...

BEFORE the big endorsement??

[Skidmore]

17. Because she assumed she'd receive that endorsement.

[Rock_Garden]

6. You know, you might be right.

[zulchzulu]

8. I'm sorry you're sad that Hillary couldn't stop people from voting

Is she gonna cry about it?

[aquart]

34. I'll wait (as long as I have to) till the CU does NOT support your candidate.

I want to hear the screaming and whining and spinning when you realize how unfair the vote will be. For now, you have the unintended gift of a huge advantage. Enjoy. Pity you can't do it without being vicious.

[John Q. Citizen]

9. As a Kucinich supporter I find your spin, lies and distortions to be tiresome. Go home.

[Renew Deal]

13. I don't imagine this person has much time left.

[Big Blue Marble]

37. I hope you are right.

His disruptive threads add nothing to a serious dialogue here.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

24. Likewise...

Being outside the Clinton and Obama camps makes for some very interesting sport, I must say. :D

[jefferson_dem]

11. Idiotic statement.

n/t

[cloudythescribbler]

26. The above is praise with faint damnation

The OP is truly dishonest. I am no less proud to be American, but part of MY notion of the American "creed" is to be opposed to obscurantism and lying evasion, and have a willingness to confront facts in an honest way. (This does NOT imply speech regulation suppressing "lies" since such suppression -- open or covert -- is always likely to suppress the TRUTH first thing).

Lincoln asked -- If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog?
Answer: Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg

Malcolm X -- Just because you put a cat in the oven and it gives birth to kittens doesn't mean that they're biscuits

-----------------------------------------------

In this instance, the Nevada Caucus setup had IN FACT nothing to do with Obama. Indeed, four of the plaintiffs in the suit DID in fact have a LOT to do with the plan, having been at the state Democratic Party meeting where the plan was UNANIMOUSLY approved and been part of that consensus.

If the plan was so DISenfranchising, why didn't any of these four or the pro-Hillary leaders of the Teachers union raise ANY objection prior to the endorsement of Obama by the CWU?

The notion that Obama was 'disenfranchising' custodians and teachers, even if you assume that changes should be made IN A TIMELY WAY to the caucus setup (or simply have a primary, which allows also for secret balloting), is really a damnable LIE.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

21. been here a while

[TeamJordan23]

14. misleading by OP. nm

[cali]

16. this is your most biarre post yet- and heaven knows, that's

saying something.

Obama had zip, zilch, nada to do with this lawsuit or with setting up the NV Caucus rules. Nothing.

If you had a shred of decency or an iota of sense, you'd self-delete this foolishness. But you don't seem to be able to grasp how ridiculous you're making yourself look. This OP stands as a monument to transparent mendacity.

[debatepro]

18. The teachers might

want to consider finding a new union if they have to work on Saturdays in support role for caucuses heald at their school.

[Tarheel_Dem]

19. Why didn't the Clintons and their supporters have a problem with

this before the Culinary endorsement? I just heard Laura Flanders say that this plan was hatched a year ago, and approved. I don't understand how any campaign can come back, at this point, and want to make last minute rule changes?

And why should the Teachers & Custodians Union have any more advantage than the Culinary Union? This is so ridiculous. We're not Republicans, we don't try to disenfranchise (or game the system)against groups of people. I thought the whole point was to make it as convenient as possible so that everyone who desires, can participate in the process.

[HeraldSquare212]

20. Apparently, the count is based on turnout

so all people in the other caucus points have to do to get even more delegates than the culinary workers is turn out. Pretty harsh rules, I guess....(input sarcasm thing).

[aquart]

33. NO. The OTHER, non-casino, caucuses are based on registration.

The caucuses have different standards to determine delegates. Which is a legitimate cause for concern.

[Egnever]

22. WTF are you talking about?

Obama made up the Dem caucuss rules? Hate to break your heart but this was hillary country as far as the dem leadership goes at least in las vegas and they have no one to blame but themselves if this doesnt turn out the way they wanted it to go.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

23. He didn't make the disenfranchising rules but he vocally supported them nt

[aquart]

25. First, Obama did NOT do this.

The Nevada Dems did this and NOBODY thinks they did it for Obama. It was a noble effort to help many people who weren't going to get the chance to caucus. But they screwed up and didn't notice till the vote wasn't going to their favorite.

Obama does NOT get the blame for this. Sorry, I'd love to, but he had nothing to do with it.

Nor should Clinton get the blame for trying a last minute hail Mary to correct the damage. It was doomed, but her supporters tried. Pity they didn't see the problem earlier.

I'm going to note, however, that the so-called "voter suppression" hysteria is a deliberate attack from Obama supporters seizing anything they can get. These are new rules that have never been used before. These people have never been able to caucus before. And Nevada was just fine with it. The Democrats tried to make it better but they've probably made it worse. Now that the precedent has been set by a judge, there should be a metric ton of lawsuits by other shift workers who didn't get this golden concession.

Finally, everything here was done legally as it should be done in any and every election. People have the right to sue to protect their rights and the value of their vote. Or do Obama supporters believe that should be changed?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

29. Obama vocally supported "one man five votes" nt

[aquart]

32. Nuh uh.

NOBODY has an obligation to disadvantage himself. He lucked out here. He was accidentally and perfectly legally given a HUGE advantage and he has the right to be grinning about it. Shows him once more that God is on his side.

One day, the Obama supporters crowing about this "victory," are going to find it turned against them, and they will then scream and howl about the unfairness of it all. What goes around, comes around.

Today is their win.

[JackORoses]

35. you don't even know what you're talking about

You hear Bill Clinton spout some tripe and you run with it.

"1 man 5 votes" is Horseshit.

It's all determined by voter turnout. Noone, I repeat, noone, will know the ratio of Voters to Delegates until after the Caucus.
Anyone who says different is a Liar.

Whatever happened to the Hillarite call to "Let the Courts Decide"?

Well, they have, and Hill's Shills were thrown out on their ear.

[LandOLincoln]

38. Thank you. Wonderful to find the rare voice of reason

in this herd of braying jackasses.

[AtomicKitten]

27. Three of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Clinton advocates that WROTE the plan.

The very plan that was perfectly fine with them when they THOUGHT they had endorsements in the bag.

But, alas, it was not to be for Clinton. Obama got the coveted endorsement.

And now all of a sudden the plan * let us recap: The SAME plan AUTHORED by the very plaintiffs now suing * is a problem.

Pahleeeeze. DU'ers should be offended that you are banking on them being that stupid.

BEWARE OF ANYONE TRYING TO SUPPRESS THE VOTE!!!

[Proud2BAmurkin]

30. The individual plaintiffs and their motivation isn't relevant.

[jefferson_dem]

31. Neither is your fucked-up OP, which is pure fabrication at best.

n/t

[Sulawesi]

36. Yes it is, it is telling...

The plaintiffs in a law suit to prevent a policy that they wrote themselves, in order to prevent their policy from taking effect, two days after the endorsement of Obama by the union. That is not relevant?

Oh, and this "counts for 5" business is totally wrong. It is based on the registration and turnout, so if one person shows up to caucus, that person will have disproportionate impact. This is so transparently bad from the Clinton side...

[earthlover]

39. I believe what you are saying...in Hillary-Speak....translation: you don't like it that more people

got to vote due to the court ruling! Translantion into Hillary-Speak: Obama disenfranchised teachers (who were not stopped from voting, but it sounds good to the Hillary Herd anyhow, and anyhow, who's watching when we talk in Hillary-Speak? Answer: nobody! YAWN!)