Hillary Goes Down

The national news outlets were slow to pick up the disenfranchisement battle in Nevada, but you read it hear first: the good ship Hillary just hit an iceberg, and is about to sink. Even William J. Clinton, Spin M.D., cannot intimidate the press enough to keep this story on mute. Nevada TV and Drudge are already hitting this hard. Expect big headlines in your morning papers.

Some background: as everyone who followed Iowa knows, caucuses are less than exemplary exercises in democracy. When Nevada was selected to vote early in the Democratic nomination calendar, a number of compromises were made to balance the competing interests involved while maintaining the byzantine caucus format, among them that on-duty workers in Las Vegas would be able to caucus in casinos.

On January 9th, the Culinary Workers Union of Nevada, 60,000 strong, endorsed Barack Obama. Within two days, the Nevada State Education Association - backing Hillary Clinton - sued on the principle of defending "one person, one vote", which is laughable in the context of a caucus.

Today, Judge James Mahan threw out the silly suit.

Saturday, Nevada voters will throw out Hillary Clinton. Rightly, many are incensed that Clinton's supporters are spending their time trying to prevent voting by working class Democrats, so undecideds will go with Obama and Obama supporters will turn out in droves.

Nationally, this story will be splashed on front pages tomorrow - and then again on Sunday and Monday, when pundits dissect Hillary's stunning underperformance in Nevada. The Clinton campaign will spend the next week - leading up to the South Carolina primary - distancing themselves from the sleazy lawsuit and from their own defense of it.

Is this too complicated for the average voter to understand? Perhaps, but the Democratic primary has been anemic on substance. Pundits are starving to death. The biggest conflict so far has been the spat over "racist" comments that weren't racist at all, and the news immediately displaced by the disenfranchisement story was Hillary's scripted sketch as a flight attendant.

All of a sudden, Obama is the good guy again, and Hillary is the Man. Hillary will lose in Nevada, lose in South Carolina, and the momentum will all be on Obama's side rolling into Super Tuesday.

Posted by Chops at January 17, 2008 8:51 PM
Comments
Comment #243226

Chops, Bill Clinton was accurate in what he said. The casino caucuses do give more validity and weight to the culinary worker’s union than other voters or to the culinary workers were they to attend caucuses outside the Casinos. That said, I don’t see how the judge could have Constitutionally ruled any other way but, to allow the caucuses in the Casinos, since, giving those employees the choice of losing their job or attending a caucus violates the one person one vote suffrage protected by our Constitution and its Amendments.

The real culprit here is not Obama or the Clintons, but, the Caucus process itself, which denies voters privacy in their vote, and forces them to side with candidates they did not intend to side with when walking in to the caucus by the Caucus rules of elimination as in Iowa.

As for Sen. Clinton going down, I think you way overstate the case. She shall remain a formidable candidate throughout the party nomination process. Nevada is but one of 50 states, and not one of the biggest delegate states at that.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 18, 2008 3:30 AM
Comment #243240

This once again shows the hyposcrisy of this “disenfrancisment” BS. These are the same guys who cry foul in every election, the same guys who want to take away workers’ rights to a secret ballot in labor elections. Now they are shocked that somebody else might play their game.

With the Clintons it is all about winning and they are good at fitting the facts to the occasion.

Posted by: Jack at January 18, 2008 5:26 AM
Comment #243271

Good story, but … hey, at least get the spelling right. In the first sentence you have used the word “hear” instead of “here”. I would have expected such an obvious error from some liberal blog, but not from WatchBlog. Sharpen up!

Posted by: Jim at January 18, 2008 11:35 AM
Comment #243270

Good story, but … hey, at least get the spelling right. In the first sentence you have used the word “hear” instead of “here”. I would have expected such an obvious error from some liberal blog, but not from WatchBlog. Sharpen up!

Posted by: Jim at January 18, 2008 11:35 AM
Comment #243269

Good story, but … hey, at least get the spelling right. In the first sentence you have used the word “hear” instead of “here”. I would have expected such an obvious error from some liberal blog, but not from WatchBlog. Sharpen up!

Posted by: Jim at January 18, 2008 11:35 AM
Comment #243274

Chops,

Hate to say this…this is only the latest case of attempted or actual disenfrancisment by the “every vote must count” people.

It’s ironic that those who champion the sanctity of each person’s vote would purposefully and willfully deny those same persons the right to determine who their leaders will be.

Every person’s vote MUST count.

Yeah, right.

Posted by: Jim T at January 18, 2008 12:19 PM
Comment #243276

I have said this many times on this site before, both in articles that I have written, and in comments to those of others… we do not have an inherent right as citizens to vote on who the Democrats choose to nominate as their candidate for the presidency. All this talk that our votes should be kept secret and ‘one person one vote’ is very applicable in November, but has nothing to do with February. The Democratic Party is a private organization where citizens can choose to be members or not according to the rules of that organization. We always seem to confuse the general election with the nomination process. The Constitution makes no mention of political parties anywhere in its text, and certainly makes no requirements for how those parties decide whom their candidate will be.

I live in Nevada, and Chops is right… this is BIG news here. I can’t help but think that Billary would not have brought this suit if the union endorsed her, but hey… that’s pure speculation. David is also right that if she were to lose Nevada and/or South Carolina… big whoop. She has a national machine that will keep marching on.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at January 18, 2008 12:46 PM
Comment #243277

One other thing… Hillary is up by slightly more than the margin of error here in Nevada, according to the NPR newscast on my way in to work this morning…

Uh… work… yeah… I should probably get back to that…

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at January 18, 2008 12:49 PM
Comment #243280


The real story is the change in attitude of the Republicans. For several years, I have been hearing how the Republicans can’t wait till Hillary runs for president so the Republicans can soundly trounce her in the general election. Now that she is running, the Republicans have suddenly gotten cold feet and have decided that their best chance of winning is dependent on the nomination of Obama.

Posted by: jlw at January 18, 2008 1:14 PM
Comment #243281

Doug, you are absolutely right about the Party (and I will add State’s) right to determine how they will select a candidate. But, as you say, the Constitution intended than anyone meeting Constitutional requirements of age and citizenship should be able to run for President. The Political Parties preempted that provision.

In addition, while the Parties may appoint or elect their nominees, it is time the voters insisted that the parties either conform to democratic election principles, or stop participating in the political parties which have so screwed up this country, corrupted our politics and government, and derailed the representative relationship between the people and their politicians, instating in its stead a relationship between party donors and politicians.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 18, 2008 1:35 PM
Comment #243285

jlw… mmm… I do not think the Reps want Obama to win the ticket anymore than they do Hillary… probably they would still rather see Hillary win… but regardless, their race is so wide open right now that they really shouldn’t be worrying about who wins the Dems nomination just yet and should instead focus on getting consensus within their own party as to who their own nomiee should be.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at January 18, 2008 2:01 PM
Comment #243292

David, you are correct on many accounts… and thank you for adding the ‘states’ bit, very astute and correct; however:

…the Constitution intended than anyone meeting Constitutional requirements of age and citizenship should be able to run for President. The Political Parties preempted that provision.

Technically speaking, no they haven’t. If, for example, McCain loses the Reps nomination, there would be nothing keeping him from running anyway. Liebermann did that successfully in 06 for his Senate campaign.

Pragmatically speaking, they have. In the current arena, the Republicrats have made it virtually impossble for anyone outside of the main two parties to win an election… check that… by continuing to mindlessly pull a party’s lever, we the people have made it virtually impossible… regardless, it will be very hard for a third party/independent candidate to win a presidential election… but the fact still remains, political parties are private organizations that are not (and should not) be bound by the courts on how they go about choosing their candidate.

Of course, had we listened to the original GW (Washington), we would not be in this mess:

The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.
Posted by: Doug Langworthy at January 18, 2008 2:18 PM
Comment #243304

Doug Langworthy Said

“I live in Nevada, and Chops is right… this is BIG news here. I can’t help but think that Billary would not have brought this suit if the union endorsed her,”

The problem is the suit was filed by a teachers union not by the Clintons.

If I was a member of the Democratic Party and I found out that some votes counted more than others, I would have filed suit too. Would I have filed suit if it did not help my candidate? NO Lets not pretend we don’t know how the game is played or that both sides don’t play it. At any rate this is all party in-fighting.

Posted by: 037 at January 18, 2008 4:12 PM
Comment #243313

Will it be Hillary or Obama that republicans face? As a conservative republican it really doesn’t matter. With Hillary we get a candidate with no practical experience in governing. Same with Obama. Hillary has huge negatives among all voters of either party and many are weary of the Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton chair switching. Obama charms many with his advocacy of “change”, but do we really know what he means by that? Will Hillary disgust black democrat voters with her actions and find many of them staying home on election day. Without the black vote she doesn’t stand a chance. And, it’s becomming more difficult for the Demo party to bring illegals to the voting booth since most states still require proof of citizenship despite their efforts to the contrary. Romney or Thompson are my top choices. Romney brings considerable governing experience to the table along with a sterling record of management. Thompson is more conservative than Romney but I don’t think he will win the nomination.

Posted by: Jim at January 18, 2008 5:22 PM
Comment #243315

Chops,

I’m an Obama guy, but I don’t see how this suit can have an impact beyond Nevada. The DNC has completely disenfranchised Michigan and Florida in the primary process and hardly anyone outside of the two states has noticed.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 18, 2008 5:24 PM
Comment #243361
Saturday, Nevada voters will throw out Hillary Clinton

Hmmmm…remember that 1948 headline that said Dewey beat Truman?

Hillary won…

Posted by: Rachel at January 19, 2008 10:10 PM
Comment #243363

Jim said: “With Hillary we get a candidate with no practical experience in governing.”

First this is a patently false statement. Senators do govern. Second, she was an active partner in some aspects of Bill Clinton’s presidency, which is more experience in the White House and national and foreign affairs than GW Bush had when you voted for him, assuming you did.

The lying Republicans have lied to their constituents about most of their party’s platform issues for more than a decade. Sure takes loyalty to hang on to a sinking ship, declaring the lifeboat the unsafe flotation device.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 19, 2008 11:16 PM
Comment #243375

David, I hardly think that being one of a hundred senators voting on legislation is comparable to governing a city or state. Do we call Senators governors or legislators? As far as her imagined experience in the Clinton WH, let us see the evidence and not keep it under wraps in the Clinton Museum. How can we judge something for which we have no evidence. It is well documented that she was not privey to any of the important meetings that take place daily in the WH. Please give me one example of an ex-presidents, governors or large city mayors wife who was elected to that office by virtue of the vast experience gleaned from listening to her husband talk. David, I have found that those who cry “liar” the loudest usually are the biggest liars of all.

Posted by: Jim at January 20, 2008 12:02 PM
Comment #243381

Jim said: “David, I hardly think that being one of a hundred senators voting on legislation is comparable to governing a city or state.”

Then you apparently haven’t a clue about the managerial requirements of a Senator. All the skills required of a mayor or governor in terms of organization, delegation, responsibility, decision making, interfacing with many interest groups, are exactly the same.

It is a myth that the experience born of ignorance of the general public as to what exactly their politicians do and how, that makes the error of judgment your comment does.

Tell me again what qualified Reagan as Governor or President in terms of his Hollywood experience? The experience skill set can be obtained from any number of occupations, including doctor of medicine, director of film and stage productions, CEO, manager of a private successful business, owner/manager of a modern farm, etc. etc. These all require very much the same kinds of skill sets. They of course don’t all require the same educational backgrounds, but, then there are no educational requirements for presidents, are there.

And those that thing a for profit manager/CEO type qualifies one as President knows nothing about accounting principles, organizational typologies, or organizational purposes. The U.S. Government was, from the very inception, NEVER meant or designed to be run as a for profit entity. It is a wholly different organizational entity with different responsibilities and obligations and purposes than a for profit organization.

Bernanke gave Congress a bit of a lesson on that a couple days ago before the House of Rep’s Committee.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 20, 2008 2:06 PM
Comment #243383

Jim, have you been asleep since 1992, or are you selectively ignoring Hillary’s role in the early 1990’s Clinton Admin. health care reform plan which never saw the light of day. Can you name me another president’s, mayor’s, or governor’s wife who was in charge of designing an entire social spending for their executive husband’s administration.

Hillary served as US Ambassador general to more than half the nations on earth during Bill’s Presidency. Giving her vastly more foreign affairs experience and insight that Giuliani or Mitt Romney for example.

She has studied and written a very successful book on social design and policy. What successful books of similar nature have the Republican candidates written?

Sorry, it appears a partisan bias blinds your comments to inconvenient facts and truth about Hillary. I won’t vote for her, but my decision at least is based on a consideration of the history and facts regarding both her merits and weaknesses as potential president. Yours appears based on the bias prejudgment that she has no merits to bring with her. Which of course is ludicrous, as the polls evidence at least in part.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 20, 2008 2:14 PM
Comment #243394

Chops,

Gotta be careful with those predictions. Not only did Clinton win Nevada, she won in the casinos:

http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/01/20/so-about-those-at-large-caucuses.aspx

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 20, 2008 6:54 PM
Comment #243438

David, citing Hillary’s huge health care reform failure hardly qualifies her for anything. She made a mess of that venture. Please, don’t insult my intelligence by comparing senatorial legislative duties with governing. Mayors and governors are held accountable by the governed for their actions. Senators don’t govern anyone, except perhaps for their bloated staffs. Tell me how one person out of a group of one hundred can be called a governor, directly responsible to the governed for his or her actions. Their only risk is not getting re-elected. Mayors and governors deal with everyday problems of the governed from snow removal and garbage collection to dealing with foreign governments on commerce. As for Hillary writing a successful book, she can’t begin to compare with Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity in terms of books purchased and popularity. Hillary as U.S. Ambassador General, now that’s a stretch. Was she on the federal payrole, did she influence foeign policy, etc? Prove it. Get the Clinton’s to open the correspondence that lies hidden from public view in Bill’s library.

Posted by: Jim at January 21, 2008 3:36 PM
Comment #243483

It doesn’t really matter what she does. She’s going to loose. As much as i want clinton to win its just not going to happen. But i just came across “The Leagues” page on FaceBook. They ask you to vote for who you want to be president surprisingly clinton was the most voted in my town. Also after you vote it shows you what issues your town caress about. Its interesting check it out. Heres the link Apps.facebook.com/theleague

Posted by: Kosta at January 21, 2008 10:45 PM
Comment #243667

Jim said: “David, citing Hillary’s huge health care reform failure hardly qualifies her for anything. She made a mess of that venture.”

And experience is the best teacher. That’s what Romney says. Is Romney lying? If not, then Hillary’s health care experience in the 1990’s gave her the experience and learning opportunity she now needs to be president.

Every child messes their pants before becoming potty trained, Jim. Have you no understanding of what experience is? Experience is having learned from inexperience and mistakes.

Your comment defies all common sense and experience we all share about how we learn and become good at things. And reveals the prejudice that underwrites your comments.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 23, 2008 9:11 PM
Comment #243716

David Remer, nice spin but no prize. Hillary had nearly 6 more years in the BC WH to get it right and didn’t. She retreated to the WH living quarters to bake cookies and clean closets. Great learning experience!

Posted by: Jim at January 24, 2008 1:49 PM
Comment #243733

Ah, so now Jim claims to be the insider on HC’s activities in the WH during the Clinton administration. Somehow, Jim, I don’t think the Clinton’s would have let near the gates, let alone inside to spy on Hillary’s daily activities.

Care to try some other line of hyperbole? Is Romney lying or is trial and error experience the teacher of us all? Not very clever how you dodged the question with a claim you could not possibly have knowledge or evidence of.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 24, 2008 4:54 PM
Post a comment