Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bill Clinton Gets Riled Over Nevada Strip Caucuses

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 10:58 AM
Original message
Bill Clinton Gets Riled Over Nevada Strip Caucuses

Bill Clinton Gets Riled Over Nevada Strip Caucuses

Former President Bill Clinton got positively riled -- as in steely-eyed -- today when pressed by a local TV reporter on the issue of lawsuits filed by Sen. Hillary Clinton's Nevada supporters to challenge the Jan. 19 Democratic "at large'' caucus locations that will serve workers on the Las Vegas strip. Many of those workers are members of the 60,000-strong Culinary Workers Union -- which has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama.

<...>

But it got fiery indeed when San Francisco's ABC 7 News bulldog politics reporter Mark Matthews grabbed him afterwards and pressed him on the Nevada lawsuits.

<...>

Clinton, just inches from his face, fired back.

''There were teachers who filed the lawsuit. You have asked the question in an accusatory way, so I will ask you back,'' the former president said. ''Do you really believe that all the Democrats understood that they had agreed to give people who worked in the casino a vote worth five times as much as people who voted in their own precinct?''

''Did you know that? Their votes will be counted five times more powerfully, in terms of delegates to the state convention, compared to delegates to the antional convention.''

Matthews noted the state party approved the set up.

more


Hillary, Do Yourself A Favor




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
1. Bill is wrong. America is not one man, one vote in presidential elections.
If it was, Gore would be president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
2. Clinton is right. 1 person, 1 vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Good point. Is he right about suppressing the vote? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. To be honest it is a tough call. 1 man, 1 vote against increasing turnout.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. I think you are distorting the argument a little. Only a little bit, really.
Since it is a caucus format there is going to be unequal representation. In the "home precincts" that amount of representation is based on voter registration, but in the "at-large precincts" it's based on turnout. It's just a weird distortion to use the 1-man, 1-vote argument because everyone still only gets one vote. And the fact all caucus goers don't get an equal voice is established by the nature of having a caucus in the first place. My caucus may have ten people voting to send a single delegate, while your caucus may only have three people voting to send a single delegate. That part has nothing at all to do with whether there are "at-large" precincts or not.

I think that the issue revolves around the idea that the "at large" caucus goers will be counted when they attend that event, even though they are already counted as residing in an "at home" precinct. At least that is the part that doesn't seem right to me. So if they were to remove them from their "at home" voter roll, I don't see how there could be any problem, really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud2BAmurkin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. yup
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
global1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
4. I Mentioned This Before - A Friend Of Mine Told Me That Bill Doesn't Really Want Hillary To Win.....
so she doesn't overshadow his accomplishments when he was president.

So when he is out on the campaign trail - either unconsciously or consciously he is doing and saying things that subvert her campaign.

I was told that this could be another reason that Gore kept an arms length from Bill when he ran in 2000.

Hillary should really keep Bill out of her campaign. Whether he is doing it unconsciously or consciously or just by association(he's created enemies that don't like him and therefore Hillary) he's going to drag her down and has been dragging her down.

I agree with the article you posted on the link. It's time to fire him from the campaign before he does more damage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Per this comment
on the linked article, if that is his goal he is succeeding.
"Bill Clinton is developing the annoying habit of getting angry and defensive every time anyone dares toquestion his and Hillary's entitlement to eight more years in the White House, sticking his finger in their faces and lecturing them as though they were misbehaved children. I had no problem with the Clintons their first time around, but in this campaign I'm honestly just getting tired of both of them. I wish they would just go away."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
8. Here I thought Clinton of all people would enjoy "strip caucuses."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NobleCynic Donating Member (991 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. ::blinks::
I'd say shame on you, but really, I just wish I thought of that line first. Damn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 01:22 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC