http://www.alternet.org/story/...

As the nomination process has unfolded and Clinton has encountered resistance in every state so far -- including Obama's Friday endorsement by the 60,000-member Las Vegas Culinary Workers Union -- her campaign's increasingly critical rhetoric has been accompanied by voter suppression tactics aimed at her rival's core voters. . . .

Nevada political insiders say the NSEA lawsuit is designed to suppress Obama's voters.

"That's the common narrative at this point," said Pilar Weiss, the Culinary Workers Union's political director, when asked if there was any other way to interpret the suit. "A caucus system is all proportional representation. It's not unfair in any way. They (the state Democratic Party) made an accommodation for Clark County."

Another Nevada activist who has worked for years in the state was even blunter.

"This (caucus) plan was created by some of the same people who are plaintiffs in the suit against it," he said. "It's not that they didn't like the plan when Clinton was ahead."

Pretty sleazy.  I might not have believed it before the election, but actions like these are WAY over the top -- against fellow Democrats no less.

If you can't beat, well 'em, as Rove once suggested, you can always cheat.  That seems to be the Clinton m.o. right now

To be accurate, the lawsuit was filed by the NEA NOT THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN.  The NEA has not endorsed either candidate, either Senator Obama nor Senator Clinton.

So it appears that two unions disagree on the rules for caucusing in Nevada.  Those are the facts.  They are not sleazy facts....they are democracy, my friend.

it's extremely hard to know when campaigns are involved or not. For instance, the NY Post article...where did that come from?  I'm suspicious because Hillary and Rupert Murdoch kissed and made up a while back.  But that's no proof the Clinton campaign was pushing this bogus "story"/hit job on Obama.  But how do we KNOW for sure what's going on?  Same thing with the union challenge in NV, how do we KNOW that it's totally uncoordinated with the Clinton campaign?

We don't know for for sure what's going on...and that's frustrating for humans who want to resolve, in their minds, all the "information" they are exposed to from:  the media, campaigns, etc.  It really bugs me that so much of the reporting media tell us the conclusion that we are to come to from what we just heard or saw!  

The purpose of logic in determining truth or fact (if it can be determined) is to reach an unbiased conclusion.  To be objective (logical), one needs to put their "beliefs" aside in the truth determination.  That's hard to do.  I'd suggest that we all do a little more critical thinking

Critical thinking is based on concepts and principles, not on hard and fast, or step-by-step, procedures. [1] Critical thinking does not assure that one will reach either the truth or correct conclusions. First, one may not have all the relevant information; indeed, important information may remain undiscovered, or the information may not even be knowable. Furthermore, one may make unjustified inferences, use inappropriate concepts, fail to notice important implications, use a narrow or unfair point of view. One may be a victim of self-delusion, egocentricity or sociocentricity, or closed-mindedness. One's thinking may be unclear, inaccurate, imprecise, irrelevant, narrow, shallow, illogical, or trivial. One may be intellectually arrogant, intellectually lazy, or intellectually hypocritical. These are some of the ways that human thinking can be flawed. wikipedia

The lawsuit in question was filed by the Nevada State Education Association AND six additional plaintiff's, three of whom were members of the board who approved the caucus rules AND and are Hillary Clinton supporters.  The Clinton campaign, along with all the other campaigns, approved these rules months ago, and were kept in the loop during the entire process, which began in May, 2007.  

All seven plaintiff's had months to object to the rules established for the caucus, so why wait until the week before the caucus to object to the rules?  Because the Clinton campaign lost the endorsement of the Culinary Workers Uniuon and her supporters, the very supporters who agreed to the rules, are now trying to disenfranchise thousands of working class voters, many of them who are minorities. It's appalling.

It is also a great opportunity to build the party from the grass roots level in a true swing state the Dems need to win in November, 2008.    

It is not the Clinton campaign who have filed the lawsuit only three of its supporters.  Your opinion is that these three supporters are, in your words,

now trying to disenfranchise thousands of working class voters, many of them who are minorities. It's appalling.

I'm glad you made that distinction.  

So, as a Clinton, supporter, do you agree with the lawsuit?  Is it fair to disenfranchise thousannds of hard-working voters?  Why doesn't the Clinton campaign disavow the lawsuit and request their supporters withdraw it?  

And why is Bill Clinton supporting the lawsuit?  Is he speaking for Hillary's campaign?  Or is he simply off message?

The Clinton camapign tried to distance itself from the lawsuit at the beginning but now Bill and others with the camapign are echoing the lawsuit in the press.

 http://ap.google.com/article/A...  

Bill clearly defending the suit.  If it's not being pushed by the Clinton Campaign, it certainly has it's blessing.

Any response?

Actually I have liked John Edwards as he represents what I think America needs most.  My comment about being off the fence (in my diary) was that she was strong enough to show that she is tough and can respond to the attacks that come her way and will come her way, if she is the nominee.  As to who I will vote for in the primaries, it will be between Edwards and Clinton (depending on what I know at that time) because Obama has not demonstrated that he is as progressive as I would like and seems is similar to other politicians (NPR reported this morning that Obama introduced his anti-war legislation concurrently with his presidential exploratory committee...it may be completely innocent, but as Lowell has said, we never really KNOW).  

However, I think that you and others have unfairly demonized Hillary Clinton and recently President Clinton. I'm not going to let untrue or unfair accusations go unanswered, regardless of who I support.  

 

Here is Senator Clinton's statement on the issue:

Asked about the lawsuit while campaigning in Reno, Clinton said she was aware of it and hopes it "can be resolved by the courts and the state party because, obviously, we want as many people as possible to be able to participate. ... In the meantime, I'm just going to campaign as hard as I can here in Nevada."

You accept that answer? Where is the substance?  

Clinton's campaign agreed with the rules set up by the Nevada Democratic Party - the rules were drafted and agreed to by all campaigns as a way to increase participation among Democrats in the caucuses in Nevada.  So, what is it exactly that she thinks the Courts and the Nevada Democratic Party need to resolve?      

Senator Clinton made a clear statement that she wanted the courts to resolve the issue and that she wanted the most people to be able to vote.  That is her stated position.

What the courts are to resolve is the issue between the two parties, of which, her campaign is not a party.  

It just doesn't make sense for you to ask what she thinks needs to be resolved.

What I'd bet she's thinking is that she would like to win the caucuses.

All of the sides sat down and agreed up these rules months ago.

The main consideration was that they wanted to be able to give the largest possible number of Democratic supporters a voice in the caucus.

Given that the MLK holiday is a heavy traffic weekend through Vegas, the Democratic party, the candidates, and the union cut a deal which enabled people who were working that weekend (the majority of union members in the hotel and casino business) to have a chance to participate.  Every campaign signed off on this.  Even the plaintiffs, who were party to the agreement participated in the discussion.

There was a comment period of several months for this matter to be resolved.  None of the plaintiffs filed a complaint.  The complaint was only filed AFTER Obama received the union endorsement (less than two weeks before the caucus).  The central argument that the plaintiffs are making is that the current rules will disenfranchise people like janitors.  Never mind that this upcoming Monday is a federal holiday -- schools will be closed; and schools also aren't open on the weekends when the caucus will be taking place.

What makes this deal sketchy is that these are not just casual supporters -- these are players in the state political machine.  It is understood that the state political leadership is strongly behind the Clinton candidacy.  It also stands to reason that the candidate most likely to benefit from suppressing the Culinary Workers union membership vote is Clinton.  This is a clear cut case of "gaming" the system.  The fact that the Clintons are the only ones who seem to find this suit to have merit raises other questions.  

Any way you cut it these tactics are extremely shady.  Sleazy politics at its worst.

I'm sure that Clinton would love to win Nevada -- as would Edwards, as would Obama.  There are more above board ways to win this vote than by cheating (and that is exactly what re-writing the rules at this stage is tantamount to doing).  This is similar to caging voters who are likely to vote in a different direction than a candidate likes (as was done in Florida in 2000).  The principle should always be "one person one vote".  Not: "People who are unlikely to vote for me, can't participate".

I've now read the Nevada complaint and don't find your explanation of the affair to be as you have alleged.  I am no lawyer so if there are any lawyers who would care to pitch in on this, please do!!

From my reading, the plaintiffs complaint is that, regardless of whether all of the campaigns and the Democratic Party of Nevada agreed to the deal, it violates Nevada Election Code.

The Democratic Party of Nevada has violated the principle of "one person, one vote" by creating "At-Large" Precincts for certain caucus participants, based solely on the employment of such participants, for which At-Large Precincts a disproportionate share of delegates to the Clark County Convention will be designated. (page 2)

This means that despite that all of the Democratic campaigns and the Democratic Party of Nevada agreed to the At-Large Precincts at one point, the plaintiffs believe that this is unconsitutional (both Nevada and U.S.) and violates the law.  The Democratic Party of Nevada is required to hold precinct caucuses in compliance with Nevada's Election Code.  And the Democratic Party of Nevada's Charter mandates that the Precinct caucuses comply with the Nevada Revised Statutes.

One of the complaints is

"...the rules for the At-Large Precinct caucuses differ from the rules of the other Party precinct caucuses to be held across the state, creating inequities among caucus participants (p 26, page 6)

Only shift workers employed by entities that have at least 4000 employees scheduled to work on January 19, 2008 will be able to caucus away from their home precincts. (p. 28, page 6)

But this I think is important:  

Other registered Party members scheduled to work at that time in locations away from their home precincts will have no ability to caucus at another precinct. (p. 29)

Finally, their allegation is that the method of allocating the number of delegates the At-Large Precincts caucuses will select is unfair. (paragraphs 31-36).

The Plan's incorporation of an At-Large Precinct caucus system creates classes of similarly situated persons: caucus participants, and treats on class more favorably than the other by assigning a disproportionate number of county convention delegates to those who participate in the At-Large Precincts. (paragraph 45)

No one is "rewriting the rules at this point".  Rather, the "rules" must comply with Nevada Election Code.  The "rules" may comply or they may not comply.  The judge will determine that.

It is my guess that whomever received the Culinary Union's endorsement, the loser would have taken the same legal steps.  This is politics, a lot is at stake, and it is legal to file a lawsuit and allege that the law is being violated.  But again, I'm not a lawyer.  All I know to be is what I've read in the complaint.  

Let's keep cooler heads and quit calling our candidates sleazy once and for all.  As others have said, you are only hurting your candidate.  Save your ire for the Republicans.  

"It is my guess that whomever received the Culinary Union's endorsement, the loser would have taken the same legal steps.  This is politics"

At last we get the truth coming out.  It's politics.

I do take issue with the first part of this statement, though. Dianne, you're always lecturing people on using  critical thinking -- what evidence do you have that Obama supporters would have filed this lawsuit if Clinton or Edwards had gotten the nomination?

Methinks you're just making this up to justify this lawsuit that stinks to high heaven.

I said I'd guess.  I think, please note think (don't know, haven't been told, am providing no evidence), that the people who have put money into Obama's campaign and the people who are working for him would advise him to do it.  Again, I think that.  Don't confront me with a question like -- what evidence do you have.  I have tried to be civil and thoughtful and you are being confrontational.  If you read carefully what I have said, you should know that I haven't expressed an opinion for either candidate on the merits of the case.  

With all due respect, I think that Obama wouldn't stand for it.  Not just based on his rhetoric -- the way that he has conducted his campaign overwhelmingly suggests that he would be strongly against such a lawsuit.

So if we're judging this based on how Obama has run his campaign, I would say that the evidence suggests that your supposition is incorrect.

approved the rules for the caucuses - that is a fact. The rules were designed to increase participation - that is a fact and the intent of the rules.

Clinton needs to step forward and ask her supporters to withdraw their lawsuit that will disenfranchise thousands of voters.  And it's smart politics - denying working class and minority voters the opportunity to participate in the caucuses is appalling and she will suffer electoral fallout from this in upcoming southern state and industrial state primaries with large concentrations of working class and minority voters, as well as other progressive voters in these states.

And Bill Clinton is damaging his legacy by supporting this lawsuit.      

The fact that three of the of the people bringing the suit APPROVED the caucus format in the spring and who are Clinton supporters, indicates this is a pure political stunt meant to help one candidate. How come the Clinton folks are the only ones agreeing with the lawsuit?

The Democratic Party controls the rules for selecting their nominee....

The state party quickly dismissed the lawsuit. Going back to last spring, every presidential campaign was involved in setting up the unusual casino caucus sites while state party officials and the Democratic National Committee ironed out the details. "This is a fair, legal and proper way to choose delegates under established law and legal precedent that has been reviewed by attorneys....The time for comment or complaint has passed," the party said in a statement.

I prefer primaries over caucuses but this is what they wanted and it was approved 100%

To deny that this has gone ahead without the blessing of the Clinton campaign is foolhardy, and the defenses of the Clintons here are naive at best, and disingenuous at worst.

I thought Democrats were above trying to disenfranchise people.  This is a tactic from the Karl Rove playbook and for the Clinton people to support this, and not to decry this, speaks volumes about their character (or lack thereof).

If the NEA wanted separate polling stations, then they should have asked for them when the rules were approved.  However, because teachers don't work on Saturdays and a large majority of these workers have to, it seems to me this is an attempt to level the playing field, not stack it.

I think it's very telling that the people coming to the Clintons' defense aren't even bothering to have a discussion on the merits of the lawsuit, they're resorting to half-denials about the Clintons' involvement.

Even in the current system, the caucus sites in Las Vegas are at Culinary Union organized hotels.  Workers at other hotels are unlikely to make the trek along the strip to caucus.  Equally, cab drivers probably also will not be able to participate as they are holding this on a busy weekend for the city.  And hotel managers at non-union hotels are unlikely to give there workers time off or enough time off to go participate.  

Some people are going to be disenfranchised regardless under a caucus system.  The Culinary Union made out like bandits in this process, and that is great for them.  But let's not portray Nevada's system as some ideal, all inclusive process that allows all to have a voice.  Primaries are better.  Allowing anyone an absentee ballot is even better.  And allowing early voting is even better.

And this is not Karl Rove's strategy.  His ones are more subtle on the disenfranchisement front like having Florida purge its election rolls of "felons" before the 2004 elections.

so why was this suit brought under the aegis of the Nevada State Education Association?

The answer here isn't complicated, and it has absolutely nothing to do with finding another NEW way less than two weeks before a caucus to enlarge the pool of caucus participants.  

If those concerns were valid, then they existed several months ago before local 226 threw its support behind Obama.  Never mind that some of the plaintiffs were in one the discussions and voiced no concerns until last week.  The bottom line is that MORE people are likely to be disenfranchised if this suit goes through than would have otherwise been the case.  The Clinton camp is clearly trying to game the system -- not to win based on the merits.  That's what rubs a lot of folks the wrong way.  

It is strange that the Nevada State Education Association decided to file the lawsuit after the Culinary Union's endorsement of Senator Obama.  I'm just saying the system is imperfect regardless.  The current design and even a redesign excludes people.  And even though this wasn't hashed out months ago, it does not invalidate the fact that people will be excluded from voicing their opinion in the caucus process.

There is no question that the Culinary Union got a great deal when the process was setup.  Maybe the competition is just jealous, fears the influence this will give the Culinary Union, and wants to chip away that?

On the Rove comparisons, they're bogus and unproductive.  Let's not use his name in reference to any Democrat unless a more thorough parallel is going to be drawn.

The Rove comparison is because Clinton people are SUING to make it harder for her opponent's supporters to vote. I'm still stunned by that.  I thought Democrats were above this kind of activity.

Imagine if Obama's supporters in Virginia were suing to make it more difficult/impossible for you to cast your ballot here?

I agree with you on caucuses though -- I think we should try to enfranchise as many voters as possible.

1.  Do you not think that if Clinton had been endorsed, the Obama lawyers/supporters/unions would have gotten their lawyers in and filed a similar suit.  I'd probably take a wager on that.

2.  I've said this before, it is not about what everyone agreed to, whenever, at this point.  One union feels that the agreement "games" (as you put it) the outcome, giving more delegates to those at these casinos than delegates at other county caucuses.

This is a contest.  All the players will use what tactics are LEGAL and will use them to THEIR advantage.  Obama included....or else he didn't learn that at Harvard.  

What do you have that backs up your "guess" that Obama would support such a move?  Please point to specific examples if you're going to ascribe motives or actions to a candidate.

Unlike some of his opponents, Barack Obama has run his campaign with utmost regard for decency and the voters.  I refuse to believe that he would be in support of such a lawsuit, even if it would be in his political interest.

You don't recognize that Obama is running a different kind of campaign -- that transcends the politics of division and fear that has plagued American politics for so long. I guess I can't blame you for thinking Clinton's opponent would stoop to her supporters' level -- that's the Clinton way to think about things.

"I guess I can't blame you for thinking Clinton's opponent would stoop to her supporters' level -- that's the Clinton way to think about things."

Okay, I didn't want to bring this up but your comment deserves a response.  At last night's debate, Senator Obama was asked by Tim Russert about a four page talking paper (that he had in his hand) that his SC press secretary had been using regarding alleged Clinton racial comments.  Senator Obama said that he regretted that that had happened.  End of fantasy.  Please see YouTube, the first video at approximately 8:00.

Senator Obama is human just like you and like me.  I appreciate that he says he wants to run a higher-level campaign but that evidence doesn't show it at this point.

As for your "supporters" comment.  I'm sorry but I'm giving you an Unproductive on that one.  If you feel that way, then you are characterizing your candidate with your attacking personal comments.  I don't think Senator Obama is like that.

Again -- you haven't given ANYTHING that backs up your claim that Barack Obama would have supported a lawsuit if he had lost the endorsement. A mistake that surrogates made -- that Obama owned up to -- doesn't come close to proving your claim. Ask yourself these questions:

Has Barack Obama or his supporters ever sued to stop people from being able to vote?

Has he worked to disenfranchise people, or through his work as a community organizer, has he worked to empower people?

Has Barack Obama's campaign not empowered millions of Americans, and motivated new people to get involved in politics?

All of this suggests that he would be STRONGLY against this Clinton effort to deny people the ability to vote.

Your argument that somehow because Clinton people are working to make it difficult for people to vote, Obama would too, is paper-thin.  And just because everyone on this post is rebutting it and recognizes it has no merit, doesn't make it a personal attack.

Stick to the facts, and please try to refrain from yelling "personal attack," "personal attack" every time you feel you've lost an argument.

In my post, I was not answering whether Obama might file a lawsuit.  I would expect he would but I could be wrong.  I gave you my reasons for feeling the way I do -- money invested, supporters, etc.  And his admission that they too used the race card just gave me more evidence that his campaign can stoop as low as any campaign.  

In my opinion you are not making your case.  And I'm am shoveling sh** against the tide in this diary.
And, I will defend my self when "attacked" (your word), which you did in your Clinton supporters remark.  

I'm sorry to say this but my usefullness is done here.  All that time I've spent here, I could have been learning more about Barack Obama .... his loss ....

But I think that this is a matter of deepest principle for Barack Obama, for the reasons I've described (namely, this is what his work was in Chicago), and he is a strongly principled person. Because of that, he would not support such a lawsuit under any circumstances.

That is my case.

I never heard him say "we used the race card" -- I think his campaign pointed out that there was a troubling pattern with what the Clintons and their surrogates were doing, and I was very proud when Obama stood up and took the first step toward reconciling the other day.

And just so's you don't think I'm hating on the Clintons, I was also very proud when Hillary came back so soon afterwards and took a note of reconciliation as well :-)

1. Would Obama's lawyers/supporters/unions have filed a similar suit?

No.

2. The issue here is that a few of Hillary Clinton's surrogates want to find a way to silence the state's biggest union as punishment for backing Obama.  That's all that this is about.  

(And by surrogates I mean "people who stand to benefit politically and professionally from a Hillary Clinton election" -- this is different from when I say "supporters".  You and I are supporters.  All that we do is vote, volunteer, or give money.  Our professional careers don't hinge on who wins the primary or caucus.  A surrogate might get a job later from the candidate, or if he or she needs a favor, they can call in the favors in the future for the work that they do).

In the law, there is something called "acting in good faith".    This doesn't JUST mean that a person plays by the letter of the law -- it means that they are also playing by the spirit of the law.  It means that you don't "game" the system for purely selfish reasons.  A person plays above board.  When a person cheats, there are consequences.

It is very hard to prove intentions, but I can tell you in this case, there is something really odd about what the Clinton surrogates are doing.  It's not a surprise to me that the first judge hearing this case had to recuse himself because of a conflict of interest.  This isn't normal behavior, and I would never want to see these type of actions become "the new normal" before an election.  

Right now we settle political disputes with ballots, not bullets, because everyone thinks that they have a fair chance to compete if they play by the rules.  If people start thinking that the game is rigged, we start having problems.  Even though this one is being brought through the courts, that doesn't mean that the motivations behind the suit are right, honorable, and worthy of respect.  Most people see this for exactly what it is.    

Did you know that 100% of our delegates here if Florida won't be counted - so all of our votes are worthless.

I wish you folks would stand up for everyone who wants their vote to be counted.

In the case of the Florida which candidate benefits?  

Even the Democratic party pays a price.  Everyone loses out.

However, the Democratic party is applying a rule consistently -- that's what matters.

When Michigan tried to do the same thing, the DNC applied the same rule.  That's a consistent principle.  If any other state had done it, I suspect the same standard would have been applied.

The bottom line is that Florida and Michigan should have worked with the other state parties to find some accommodation.  Instead they jumped their place, and are facing a penalty (when all is said and done the vote may still count).

The rules concerning states mean that 48 states agreed to have the rules played out, and then 2 decided they wanted to play by a different set of rules.  That created problems.

In this case, you have every campaign agreeing in advance to a set of rules.  No one voiced any concerns about this for months.  It was only after the state's biggest union endorsed Obama that Clinton's surrogates decided that the rules didn't suit their interests.  That's a problem.

A better analogy here would be if Dodd sued to invalidate the vote of New Hampshire, Iowa, and every other state, because he felt that his best advantage to win was if the Democratic nominee was chosen purely on the support of Connecticut.  Now imagine that Dodd appeals this decision to a board made up largely of people who have political ties to him, and who might benefit from his winning the election in the future.  That's a better analogy to what's going on here.

The real question is -- why aren't you outraged when union supporters get shut out of a vote simply because they don't back the "right" candidate?  

The real question is -- why aren't you outraged when union supporters get shut out of a vote simply because they don't back the "right" candidate?

First, I am most likely the strongest supporter of labor here.  It's what I do.  I've spent the last 8 years working for the rights of working people in technology professions.  The union votes in Vegas should count.

But so should all the votes of workers here in Florida.  No matter what arguments you have made, at the end of the day my vote amounts to a popularity contest.  Our delegates in Florida won't be seated.

We aren't some little state with a handfull of delegates like Iowa or New Hampshire.  We are the 4th largest state in the US.  That's alot of votes being discarded.

And he's telling the truth.  He helped mobilize IT workers from all over the country as volunteers for Webb's campaign.

Thanks for all your help, Roy!  It was fun working with you... even though we were hundreds of miles away.

Senator Webb is a champion for American workers.  It would be a shame if IT workers didn't help him beat the former president of the ITAA (Miller) and a rabidly anti-labor incumbent.

that union votes should count -- regardless of which candidate they back.

I mentioned the unions too, because I know exactly what your position is on them.  I've been on this website long enough to know that you are a strong supporter of them, which made it odd to me to hear you saying that there was some kind of double-standard at work here.  There isn't as far as I can see.  We have two different situations.

As far as Florida and Michigan go, I think it stinks that those votes won't count in the primary.  At the same time I think it stinks that Virginia isn't an early primary state.  I think it stinks that Maryland, Delaware, North Carolina, etc, etc aren't either.  

But all these other states -- including Virginia -- have agreed to the rules set by the national party and they are abiding by them.  As a result, some votes may not impact the early media coverage, but at some point people in states like Virginia will have a chance to weigh in on the election.  It may even have an impact this year.

What's different about the Nevada situation is that EVERYONE agreed to these rules in advance.  There was no situation involving a Florida or Michigan not liking the rules and saying that the whole thing was unfair.  The cab unions could have sued or voiced a complaint.  They didn't.  

The problem here is that one candidate wants to fix the rules after the fact by calling in a few favors with the Clark County Democratic political machine.  That doesn't sit well with me.   No one should allow these late rule changes to come into play unless there is a really, really good reason.  I don't see rigging an electoral vote to the advantage of one candidate late in the game as a good reason.  Hopefully, the courts will rule accordingly.  

"that union votes should count -- regardless of which candidate they back"

Absolutely.  I concede that Florida shouldn't have moved the primary.  But, taking away our votes goes too far.

I couldn't agree with you more.

I thought Obama and Edwards were fools for with drawing from Michigan.

Should a compromise be worked out "Hillary will have all or most of the delegates".

That is what I call forsight and leadership. And makes me really question all the others who dropped out because of a rule that may be changed.

Since it is a well know fact, that most of the establishment base supports Hillary, just what makes anyone truely believe the rules won't change? I have never fully trusted any Politician and I am not going to change my thinking now. Cry foul all you want, shit happens in smoke filled rooms.

I went to this site and this is what I found.

http://electionlawblog.org/arc...
"I haven't looked at this in any detail, but it seems to me that a lawsuit filed challenging the voting structure of the Nevada caucus, blah, blah."

Then This:
http://thepage.time.com/letter...
And all I found was a group of Obama supporters countering the law suite with their spin.

And now I read a bunch of spiining that has not much fact on this blog, except spin stories in Newspapers. Sure there are not any classes on Saturday, but what is happening at the schools that parents or others will attend on Saturday at close to the times of the caucus. Just because it was all arranged in May of 2007, what may have come up NOW, to create this law suite.

This spin reminds me of our Governor jumping all over Iowa in support of Obama, instead of trying to solve the problems in Richmond and getting legislators together. NO. Instead he is trying to be Vice President or some other official in Obama's cabinet. Since Edwards and Obama say Hillary cannot clean up Washington because she is taking Washington money, just how can Kaine organize Virginia as he is out campaigning for his "wants" in Iowa.

This is what I believe happened in Nevada regarding this lawsuit.  Each of the campaigns and the Party knowingly put together a plan that would inordinately assign a larger number of delegates from the At-Large Precincts than from other precincts in the county.  It was an unfair method for the assignment of delegates as you will read below.  

The campaigns each thought they might get a chance of extra delegates from these At-Large precincts with the rules that they adopted.  Read pages 6 and 7 of the complaint, especially paragraphs 34., 35., and 36.  In other words they each agreed to apply unique/different delegate determination rules to these At-Large Precincts than from regular precincts, providing the At-Large Precincts as much as ten times the rate of delegates as other caucuses in Clark County would be assigned.  

So consider an alternative scenario to the current one:   Clinton wins the Culinary union's endorsement and will probably obtain these extra delegates since the rules give you extra delegates because you showed up at the casino rather than to your home voting district.  

So if you don't think that Obama and Edwards wouldn't be crying foul, then I think you might be politically naive (probably not a bad thing, if you don't want to become cynical)?  And as to the lawsuit, I'm sure there was a union and law firm for each Obama and Edwards lying in the grass ready to file the same lawsuit that's being considered today.  Hillary will get all these extra delegates and Obama and Edwards will lose what they could have had with the endorsement.

All the candidates and the campaigns all knew that this was risky when they all signed up to these using these At-Large Precincts.  

The lawsuit isn't about disenfranchisement of voters....that is spin from the campaigns. It isn't about another union not being included.  It is about the assignment of an inordinant number of delegates to the convention from these 9 precincts.  

Show me where it's about something else.  I've provided you the lawsuit to read.