NV: Bill Clinton, Stumping and Simmering

The New York Times ^ | January 18, 2008 | PATRICK HEALY

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks!

[AwesomePossum]

1/17/08 at 7:49 p.m. I have just resigned in protest as a precinct chairperson for the caucus based on the outrageous and unconscionable decision by the Nevada Democratic Party to have different rules for different groups. This is a violation of our most fundamental principles of equality and democracy. Shame on the Nevada Democratic Party and shame on those who have turned this into a racial issue.

Shame on this Clinton hack for waiting months to express such a heartfelt outrage......heh, heh, heh............shame on this Clinton hack for waiting until the legal maneuvering by the Clinton camp failed before expressing outrage, outrage I tell you...heh, heh, heh..............Shame on this Clinton hack for being like, er, like the crooked, tricky, dirty lawyers know as the Clintons.....heh, heh, heh..........

[AwesomePossum]

Then Bubba will have a stroke to go with his past heart attack in his still-secret medical files

I'm not sure that his cocaine damaged heart can take much more of this...............

[Timeout]

Hillary Rodham Clinton may be the spouse running for office....

...and then again, she may NOT be.

I know Healy didn't mean it that way. But he touched a nugget of truth. Bill is acting as though HE is the candidate. I think voters sense that and it's one reason "their" campaign seems so off kilter.

[Kitty Mittens]

[Theodore R.]

Still though, ol’ Bill has been popular with the sheeple as long as the Beatles were!

[Theodore R.]

I initially thought that a majority of HRC voters were really wanting Bill back “in charge”. Many are just liberals tired of both Bush and Clinton, it now seems.

[Theodore R.]

Still too, ol’ Bill will always believe in the sheeple. As his sometimes friend Carter said, “I do not expect to lose”. At least for 1976. Is it really possible that the sheeple (the little people, as Leona Helmsley allegedly called them) could tire of both Clintons?

[Theodore R.]

But that stirs up the older females for HRC!

[ripley]

“is it really possible that the “sheeple” could tire of both clintons?”

the “sheeple” are not really what that word connotes. many of them are ravenous wolves who will vote for whomever “fights” for them. many are nothing but schoolyard bullies who carry their attitude into the political arena. they want to tax “the rich” but it seems that their neighbors also get taxed, to the hilt. they want money, and what better way to get it than to vote it for oneself through a willing political party that hates the constitution and considers it to be an impediment to power.

the sheeple? never happen. just a conglomeration of manipulative individuals who consider others to be their pawns.

[Darkwolf377]

What a jerk!

I'm starting to think if Hillary wins, we will see Bill lose his marbles completely, to the point where they will separate while she's in office.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

He represents all she knows about Foreign Affairs....HEHEHE!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Just came across this from the Las Vegas Sun:

Just plain politics at play in at-large caucus site brouhaha
By Jon Ralston

***************EXCERPT**************************

Fri, Jan 18, 2008 (2 a.m.)

So was Thursday’s decision by Judge James Mahan a victory for democracy, enfranchising hundreds, maybe thousands of workers whose bosses want them on-site so they can maximize sucker-fleecing?

Or was it a terrible travesty for Nevada, ratifying a caucus system that was slanted toward the Culinary Union by giving members a disproportionate say in who wins Saturday?

The answer is somewhere between those two extremes as Mahan’s affirmation of the state Democratic Party’s delegate selection plan ended an acrimonious, personalized conflagration that threatened to burn down The Little Caucus That Could. Mahan may have doused the fire but the scorched earth this blaze left behind will leave wounds that will not be soon forgotten. And all of this has clouded what had become a perfect set of conditions for Nevada in its new early-decider role we even have Iowa/New Hampshire-like cold weather! as the Democratic race for the nomination reached new levels of intensity within the confines of the Silver State.

This was never as simple as it was spun by both sides, nor was it as complicated as some might make it. The road to this hellish conflict was paved by people with good intentions who wanted to ensure The Little Caucus That Could had a robust turnout. In so doing, they concocted a legally quirky scheme with the help of casino and Culinary bosses that never would have become an issue if the race hadn’t been tied at one state apiece and Nevada hadn’t been seen as the tiebreaker and momentum bestower.

Does anyone out there no matter whom you support really believe it is purely a coincidence that this lawsuit was filed after the Culinary, doing a better Hamlet than Olivier in his prime, finally endorsed after weeks of dithering? That was the catalyzing event and anyone who tells you otherwise is either hopelessly blinded by candidate love or simply doesn’t know the facts and history.

Indeed, the amount of misinformation disseminated in the past week has been astonishing by both local and out-of-state media outlets. To wit:

Many simply declared the suit was filed by “Clinton supporters.” This is patently false. The plaintiffs were party folks who had been questioning the delegate plan even though they had voted on it but probably failed to realize the potential fallout and the teachers union and its president, who has not taken a position in the race.

But even if you give the plaintiffs the best of it and I do that they were unwitting pawns in a greater scheme and really believed the plan was unfair, you cannot banish the politics so blithely. Two points: Does anyone think the Clinton campaign would be clumsy enough to have its own supporters file the suit? And does anyone really believe teachers union boss Lynn Warne awoke with a start one night, had an epiphany about the so-called unfairness of the plan and decided to file a lawsuit?

I can do plenty of dot-connecting and most of the time in Nevada politics it’s not Kevin Bacon-like degrees of separation, it’s just one or two. Such is the case here and one other question comes to mind: Is there anyone out there who thinks the Clinton campaign would have been so adamant and that the former president would have been so incensed if Hillary had snared the endorsement? If so, I would like to sell you some Fred Thompson-for-president futures.

So is the plan fair? It depends on what the definition of “fair” is.

The plan attempts to mimic state law, which allows greater delegate apportionments for rural areas, which have megaprecincts. The at-large sites essentially are megaprecincts. But that analogy is not perfect the state law deals with registered voters in precincts and the delegate plan deals with attendance at the caucus sites.

The problem is, there was no perfect scheme to apportion delegates if you create these megaprecincts. It may seem unfair to allow a ratio of delegate apportionment that is as much as a 10-1 difference from regular precincts. But does it make sense that a regular precinct is given a fixed amount of delegates whether one person or 800 show up?

Let’s face it: Party politics are ipso facto screwy. So it’s not surprising that this plan has some screws loose. But Mahan’s decision was that’s how political parties operate, and he clearly recognized the lateness of the filing hour.

Whatever the decision actually means and whatever long-term schisms it causes, here’s an idea for the next quadrennial drama: How about a primary, Democrats?

Discussion: 14 comments so far…