Hillary campaign's disingenuous accusation about UNITE HERE

[ProSense]

Response to UNITE HERE Ad from Clinton Spokesman Phil Singer

“In Iowa, Senator Obama and his campaign went out of his way to attack labor unions for independently promoting other candidates. But in Nevada, he’s looking the other way as they falsely attack his opponents.

“That’s wrong. Senator Obama shouldn’t be saying one thing about independent groups in Iowa and another in Nevada.

“While we clearly disagree with the attacks being made against us, we do respect the right of labor unions to participate in the process. Senator Obama apparently has no problem with groups running ads as long as they attack others.

“While that’s audacious, it’s certainly not hopeful.”

LAS VEGAS - Presidential candidate Barack Obama won a key national labor endorsement Wednesday, a coup that could boost the Democrat's candidacy against Hillary Rodham Clinton in Nevada's nominating contest.

Leaders of 450,000-member UNITE HERE announced the endorsement in a news conference in Las Vegas Wednesday, the day after Obama narrowly lost the New Hampshire primary to Clinton.

The endorsement was made on behalf of Nevada's largest union, the 60,000-member Culinary Workers Union, Local 226, and UNITE HERE, its parent organization. The endorsement is Obama's first from a major national union.

link

Why the Court Supported Nevada Voting Rights

First her supporters try to disenfranchise the group. When the group hits back at them for not caring about their interests, the campaign accuses them of being unfair (here at DU they're accused of being racists?).

The ad (translation via politico):

Hillary Clinton does not respect our people. Hillary Clinton supporters went to court to prevent working people to vote this Saturday — that is an embarrassment.

Hillary Clinton supporters want to prevent people from voting in their workplace on Saturday. This is unforgivable. Hillary Clinton is shameless. Hillary Clinton should not allow her friends to attack our people’s right to vote this Saturday. This is unforgivable; there’s no respect

Sen. Obama is defending our right to vote. Sen. Obama wants our votes. He respects our votes, our community, and our people.

Sen. Obama’s campaign slogan is “Si Se Puede” (“Yes We Can”). Vote for a president that respects us, and that respects our right to vote. Obama for president, “Si Se Puede” (“Yes We Can”).

[MethuenProgressive]

1. Another racist attack against Clinton.

"Hillary Clinton does not respect our people." :puke:

[NJObamaWoman]

3. NOT. I took it to mean Americans.

[ProSense]

4. Your inducted: Democrats for vote suppression! n/t

[TwilightZone]

9. As opposed to "Democrats for racist attacks"?

Yes, let's inject race into the election once again. It worked so well last time.

[ProSense]

12. When did it become racism, when Hillary tried to disenfranchise them

or when they accused her of it? n/t

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. "Them"... do you think all workers on the strip are latino?

[ProSense]

19. Do you think "them" is a generic term for Latinos? n/t

[cloudythescribbler]

48. Actually I read somewhere that ~40% of CWU are Latino

[Sarah Ibarruri]

7. She's trying everything to win. When something gets in her way, whammo.

That's why I'm for Edwards. Besides, he's the only one telling the dirty truth about life in the U.S.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. If you don't see that ad as racial by design... wow. n/t

[ProSense]

6. Was it racism that spurred Hillary's campaign to engage in vote suppression? n/t

[Maribelle]

13. Do you use the term "hillary's campaign" based on the rules of 6 degrees of separation?

[ProSense]

18. No, based on this

A Feisty Bill Clinton Defends Nevada Lawsuit:

[Maribelle]

22. Speaking in defense of a law suit after it was filed? You truly are desperate.

[ProSense]

24. So he didn't agree with it? No, you are desperate! n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. Hillary can and has been attacked over charges of vote suppression

That is fair game in my opinion. Whether one agrees with that charge or not, it can be debated.

But here you changed the subject. I have no problem with a Union Ad that expresses strong disappointment with Clinton supporters for wanting to declare those caucus locations to be invalid. I have a real problem with the clear injection of a broader racial overtone into an ad personally calling out Hillary Clinton in that way however.

[ProSense]

27. "But here you changed the subject." Really? Is there anything racial in the OP beyond the DU link?

n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. My reply was too a specific post

"Was it racism that spurred Hillary's campaign to engage in vote suppression?"

Whether it was or it wasn't is something you are free to argue. Those who wrote the ad in question made their own decision about what was and was not appropriate to circulate widely. I thought the ad was topic of the OP.

[ProSense]

37. As was mine! n/t

[jlake]

5. Racist - if you don't see it, seek medical help NOW.

[KennedyGuy]

10. amazing how blantant racism is Ok when it comes to Hillary..

but if you even mention that Obama is black..Oh....My...God!
the sky falls in.

[ProSense]

11. Racist is trying to suppress minority votes. n/t

[jlake]

14. Racist is discriminating against any race. As in, what this ad is doing.

[ProSense]

16. Which race are they discriminating against? n/t

[AX10]

8. Shameless race baiting by Obama and company.

And don't give me that "vote suppression" shit. Hillary has done no such thing.
One Person = One Vote! That is fair. That is DEMOCRACY!

[ProSense]

15. "And don't give me that "vote suppression" shit. "

Well, you've got it. You may not care about other people's vote, which is what Hillary's campaign is all about: protect Hillary supporters' votes only.

[Maribelle]

20. What is spine chilling to me regarding the casino caucuses ...

is that you would be extremely hard pressed to find even one Obama supporter to explain why they support the unfairness to some democrats in Nevada who will have to caucus under one set of rules at the original precinct, and that others will be allowed to caucus under an different set of rules at the casino caucuses.

Also upsetting, as your links lead to, is that fact that you and these same supporters of the unfairness point to Florida and say see.

However, all of the democrats in Florida will be held to the same rules - - none have been set up to be favored by a different set of rules.

That you call Hillary campaign's disingenuous over the racist ad is pathetic. Where did you buy that forked tongue of yours, from a neoconservative?

[ProSense]

21. You may want to read the court ruling. n/t

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

25. "racist spit?" The OP is clear, Hillary Campaign supported efforts to disenfranchise the group. n/t

[Maribelle]

28. Racist sipt that the op supports is the ad.

You might need to reread it.

[ProSense]

29. I did, missed it. Care to point out the specific racist comment? n/t

[Maribelle]

30. Care to comment on why you support the different set of rules for democrats

and then try to use Floridians to support this unfairness?

[ProSense]

31. I see you have no response. n/t

[Maribelle]

32. I see you are too much the coward to explain your support of the duplicity.

[ProSense]

33. Ah, resorting to insults.

Reminds me of the Hillary campaign:

Claims something is racist

Asked to explain

Changes the subject

No one buys it

Launches defensive attack




edited typos

[Maribelle]

41. Still can't explain your support of the duplicity? What's holding you back?

[mkultra]

34. i dont see it that way

The members of the education union will be off and able to attend the normal caucus. The culinary union workers are round the cloak workers. Thats the reason the decision was made in advance of ANY decelerations.

[HeraldSquare212]

35. Weight of voting is based on turnout in the caucus

teachers or anyone else can get greater weight for their caucus location by turning out. And that's the whole point of the rule: encourage turnout. Caucuses are a party-building exercise as much as choosing a nominee And remember the Iowa caucus? Some areas - rural, I think - were weighted more than urban to encourage candidates to campaign in those areas as much as they did in cities.

[Maribelle]

38. I don't think you are correct. And I believe this was the crux of the lawsuit.

The original precincts receive an allotment of delegates based on the registered number of democrats at the precinct, regardless of how many show up.

On the other hand, the casino locations will receive delegates based on the number of folks that show up to vote.

So, let's say you are registered in Ward 1 but then you vote at casino 1.

Ward 1 has already received a tick mark because you are registered there, and casino 1 will receive an additional tick mark because you voted there.

The "one voter, one vote" rule is severely compromised in Nevada. Different rules for different places, the crux of the lawsuit.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/clinton-rips-ca.html

[HeraldSquare212]

39. Assuming you're correct, you don't have an issue with the same thing in Iowa? nt

[Maribelle]

42. Did they have different rules for different places in Iowa? I don't know.

Truly, I hadn't heard some democratic voters in Iowa had one set of rules and some democratic voters in Iowa had a different set.

[HeraldSquare212]

43. Yes, some caucuses weighted higher, rural mostly

and remember, we don't even know the formula that Iowa Dems used to translate caucus votes to delegates. But it gave different results for different caucuses even with the same number of votes for each candidate.

[Maribelle]

44. I could be wrong, but it sounds to me as if Iowa could base it on registration

not how many show up.

[HeraldSquare212]

45. No, I think they weight it to rural areas to encourage candidates to campaign there . nt

[Maribelle]

46. Hmmm. I'll need to look it up then to see if they have different rules for different voters.

Thanks.

[mkultra]

57. my understanding

My belief was that even the casino spots where precinct based which is why they allow anyone withing a 2.5 mile radius of the spot to caucus there.

[indimuse]

54. Culinary Union Intimidating Members to Vote for Obama :Got this off of JE'S website!

Culinary Union Intimidating Members to Vote for Obama
Iowamomentum in Diaries
1/16/2008 at 9:21 PM EST

This needs to be pushed to CNN/MSNBC/Foxnews ASAP... Disgusting Chicago politics...

http://www.taylormarsh.com/

There's nothing dainty about Las Vegas but things are getting rough.

Intimidation. Pledges demanded. People to vote for Obama or stay away from the caucus.

Call this union vs. the casino workers.

I just did an interview with a Culinary union member who was intimidated while eating lunch in the cafeteria at work. She didn't want to give her name, but she wanted to tell her story. The connection is rough, but her story tells the tale. It's below in a podcast:

Culinary Union pressures members to vote for Obama.

Pamela over at Democratic Daily posted on a tip she received about the intimidation.

Jon Ralston talked about it this morning on MSNBC.

I just got off the phone with a unimpeachable source that there has been more than one confrontation between union reps and members.

This is not an indictment against unions, especially considering I joined my first union when I was in my teens, totally four eventually. Unions are the backbone of the middle class. But in every good group there lies opportunistic cretins. Obama's supporters are obviously applying Chicago style politics in Sin City and they've got three days to get the job done.

Meanwhile, you've got big shots like John Kerry talking about "let the people vote" doing so within a stacked system titled towards the Culinary union, with many of their members who'd much rather vote for someone other than Obama being intimidated and forced to sign pledge cards. Some will fight back, but most will not. From what I'm hearing, this is getting ugly. It's the opposite side, with the story actually being "make the people vote for me."

[indimuse]

58. If you don’t sign, we’re going to send you back to Mexico.’ ”

This is from a few years ago, about the Culinary Union and it’s tactics. This was written by the Nevada Journal and describes the union’s practices while trying to organize at the MGM Grand hotel. The union forced workers, particularly inon-English speaking workers, to sign cards in support of the union but used threats and outright lies to coerce them to do so.

“Where is Justice for the Working People?”

nj.npri.org/nj98/03/cover_story.htm

“”It was just very hostile,” Restori said. “If you did not agree with the other side, people no longer spoke. A wonderful place to work has turned into a frenzy—splitting up people, making enemies out of friends.”
Restori, originally from Pittsburgh, used to be a strong supporter of unions. Her husband was a member of the Steelworkers Union before they moved to Las Vegas. An employee of the MGM since its opening, Restori helped the Culinary Union Local 226 in its first effort to organize the hotel-resort until she realized it was taking advantage of people.
“Unions are good but not this one,” she said. “My feeling is that the Culinary Union has targeted—I will say—foreign people. They manipulated, tricked and fooled them and took advantage of their lack of knowledge of labor laws, their rights.
“They were saying, for instance, ‘Sign this card, you’ll get a free turkey. If you don’t sign, we’re going to send you back to Mexico.’ ”

This one is from 2004 from the Nevada Policy Research Institute. It describes the Culinary Unions merger with UNITE.

“Culinary’s Sinister New Partner”

[cloudythescribbler]

49. This characterization of the NV lawsuit is a total crock --

Here's an article that addresses the issue realistically:

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/01/clinton_statement_on_nv_lawsui.html

Clinton Statement on NV Lawsuit
Posted by TOM BEVAN

Here's the text of a statement just put out by the Clinton campaign in response to the decision today by a Nevada court to allow the at-large caucus sites on the Las Vegas strip:

"Nevadans have the opportunity to play a special role in the nominating process on Saturday, and we are thrilled with the energy and support we are seeing across the state. It is clear that Nevadans are excited about participating in this process. While we were not involved in this lawsuit, and have always said that we would play by the rules that we're given, it has always been our hope that every Nevadan should have equal access and opportunity to participate in the caucus. Make no mistake -- the current system that inhibits some shift workers from being able to participate, while allowing others to do so, would seem to benefit other campaigns. More importantly it is unfair. We also are concerned with recent news reports about voter intimidation tactics that would further discourage some Nevadans from participating on Saturday. Our strategy remains the same - we want as many people as possible to participate in the caucus, and we are going to reach out to as many Nevadans as possible in an effort to do as well as possible on Saturday. The Obama campaign has been clear in its belief that whoever wins the culinary union endorsement will win Nevada. We will leave it up to the people of Nevada to make that decision."

Let me see if I can simplify this piece of political jujitsu: "we had nothing to do with the lawsuit and we want everyone to participate, but we support its intent even if the practical result is that thousands of Democratic caucusgoers would be disenfranchised. Despite such heavy handed tactics by folks friendly to our campaign, please note the Obama camp is the one trying to intimidate voters. And, by the way, Obama has to win."

[Skip Intro]

40. Fucking bullshit.

Hillary's attacked, and she's the bad guy.

Good luck selling that spin here.

[johnnydrama]

47. why

The bottom line is, Democrats are supposed to help the people with LESS access to vote, get MORE access to vote, not the other way around.

[dailykoff]

50. Let's see, union busting PNAC pimp or Obama.

That's a toughie!

[ProSense]

51. Kick! n/t

[rinsd]

52. What is disengenuous? Obama complained about 3rd party attack ads.

Now he seems to not have a problem with it.

His douchebag spokesman even echoed the ad.

[ProSense]

53. Kick! n/t

[LostinVA]

55. The antithesis of DeepModemMom

[Cameron27]

63. Amen!

[Radical Activist]

56. excellent ad

Hillary did something stupid and the ad calls her on it.

[ProSense]

60. Exactly, n/t

[ProSense]

59. Kick! n/t

[ProSense]

61. Kick! n/t

[mtnsnake]

62. Another thread by the person who helps Republicans more than Democrats

Just look at the number of anti-Clinton threads you've posted in the last 24 hours. I'm sure that Republicans everywhere wish to thank you for all your many superb anti-Clinton threads. Later this year they'll have an encyclopedia of propaganda to use, thanks to you!