Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Hillary Clinton's Dirty Campaign Tactics

By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet. Posted January 15, 2008.


In Iowa, New Hampshire and now Nevada, the Clinton campaign has sought to suppress the vote of her rivals' supporters.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Steven Rosenfeld

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The headlines say the latest schism among the top Democratic presidential candidates is over gender and race. But on the ground in the presidential season's opening states, there is a darker narrative: that Hillary Clinton will not just fight hard, but fight dirty, to win. And her tactic of choice is attempting to suppress the votes of her rival's supporters.

The latest example is from Nevada, where the Nevada State Education Association is widely seen as filing a suit on Clinton's behalf to stop Las Vegas' most powerful union, Culinary Workers Local 226, from caucusing inside downtown casinos after the union endorsed Barack Obama. The tactic foments a split along racial and class lines in arguably the strongest union city in America.

"It's horrible," said one longtime Nevada activist, who didn't want his name used. "It will cause fights and damage that will last for years."

But the Clinton campaign has made similar moves in New Hampshire and Iowa.

In the first primary state, her supporters -- backed by New Hampshire Democratic Party officials -- pressured poll workers to remove observers stationed by the Obama campaign. These volunteers had intended to track voters as part of their get-out-the-vote effort. That tactic came after the Clinton campaign sent a mailing targeting women that said Obama would not "stand up and protect" a women's right to choose because he had voted "present" -- but not yes -- on a few abortion-related bills in the Illinois legislature.

"I've kept most mailers I got from every presidential candidate this year, and that mailer was the absolute worst," wrote New Hampshire blogger Peter Glenshaw. "Never mind that Obama has a 100 percent approval rating from Planned Parenthood in Illinois. Never mind that Planned Parenthood asked him to vote 'present' on those bills."

And in Iowa, the Clinton campaign -- with the help of the state's largest newspaper, the Des Moines Register, which endorsed her -- was discouraging students from returning from winter break to vote, even though their right to do so was legal, said Rick Hasen, who writes a respected election law blog. "Indeed such voting could help to compensate for the otherwise anti-democratic nature of Iowa's role in the presidential election process," he said.

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.

While Clinton campaign surrogates have verbally accused Obama of many things, from "fairy tale" answers on Iraq to being a drug user while they served the country more nobly, intentionally suppressing voters -- especially under-represented, low-income minority union members -- stands out in 2008's Democratic presidential campaign.

After all, the Democratic National Committee moved Nevada's caucuses to the top of the primary lineup so minority voices could be heard -- and no organization is more aligned with those voters in Nevada than the Culinary Union, whose training materials for its members are printed in four languages. In contrast, the state teachers, whose suit seeks to stop those workers from caucusing in nine "at-large" precincts in big downtown casinos, have a statewide base because its members work throughout Nevada.

The NSEA suit claims the at-large casino caucuses are not fair to the state's other voters because they will likely be overrun with voters, thereby skewing the proportional representation of Clark County delegates to the state party convention.

Neither NSEA officials nor their Las Vegas lawyers returned calls on Monday. However their suit states that "by packing as much as 10 percent or more delegates into the county convention, the at-large precinct caucus system (created for the casinos) substantially diminishes the voting power of delegates from other county precinct caucuses."

In other words, a strong turnout from the tens of thousands of Culinary Workers Union members in Las Vegas, where 70 percent of Nevada voters live, could swing the state's early foray into presidential politics. In 2000, fewer than 1,000 people participated in Nevada's caucuses. In 2004, that number was about 9,000. This year, estimates are in the tens of thousands.

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."

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: nevada, new hampshire, iowa, barack obama, election 2008, hillary clinton

Steven Rosenfeld is a senior fellow at Alternet.org and co-author of What Happened in Ohio: A Documentary Record of Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election, with Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman (The New Press, 2006).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Does Clinton use the dubious tactics of JFK?
Posted by: Sociallibertarian on Jan 15, 2008 1:40 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to many historians John F Kennedy stole the election against Richard M Nixon by vote theft in Illinois and Texas. In Illinois he was helped by Mayor Richard J Daley and Lyndon Johnson.

So dirty tactics is not unknown to democrats.

Bush won the 2000 election dubiously as JFK won his 1960 election equally dubiously and now it seems that Clinton is following Bush and JFK footsteps.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Character Matters
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Jan 15, 2008 1:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many of us were concerned about Bush's character before his semi-election in 2000, but the media were not interested. His history of dirty tricks, inter alia, raised red flags. We got the most unscrupulous, divisive, amoral president in our history. We ignore evidence about Hillary's character at our nation's--and the world's--peril. The election isn't just about experience, as she would have it, or about positions on the issues. Character does matter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Character Matters Posted by: puddytat
» RE: Character Matters Posted by: davescott
» RE: Character Matters Posted by: rury
Certain Defeat
Posted by: Tom Degan on Jan 15, 2008 3:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After this week, John Edwards is going to come out smelling like a rose.

If the Democratic party is stupid enough to give the nomination to Hillary Clinton, theyll deserve everything that happens to them.

The probable Republican nominee is going to be John McCain> Do you really think - do you seriously believe - that the American people are going to choose her over him?

The Democratic candidates for the nomination in 2008 are some of the most outstanding to come forward in my lifetime. And yet the stupid fucking Democrats are about to hand over the nomination to the Queen of the focus groups.

Go figure.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY.
Theodore Roosevelt: The People's President

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Certain Defeat Posted by: davescott
» RE: Certain Defeat Posted by: lm
» RE: Certain Defeat Posted by: lm
» RE: Certain Defeat Posted by: Pinetree
» Tom Posted by: rjgwood
» RE: Tom Posted by: Tom Degan
» Amen! Posted by: dobka
gemajabe
Posted by: gemajabe on Jan 15, 2008 3:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a great idea. Let's wait for a woman who does not fight "hard and dirty" to win, unlike every other single leading politician. Let's hold back on nominating a woman until we get a soft, peaceful female-that way we can wait another 200+ years for justice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: gemajabe Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: gemajabe Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: gemajabe Posted by: happycozy
» Bushit=Hillary's Doing It Posted by: rjgwood
» RE: Bushit=Hillary's Doing It Posted by: juanpecan81
» Nice argument Posted by: skoog5600
the dirtiest trick of all has been the "two horse race" portrayed by the media
Posted by: Suzon on Jan 15, 2008 3:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
even though Edwards came second in Iowa. I haven't heard either Clinton or Obama doing anything to acknowledge this. In fact, their ramping up of controversy between them is very helpful to this cause.

If the race is only between the two of them, one will win and the other will lose, perhaps to fight again another day. But one thing's for sure: the CEOs will be rubbing their hands with glee.

It reminds me of the Battle Royal in Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man where the last black man standing in the boxing ring was awarded a prize by the southern town's businessmen. The prize was a briefcase which he was to present to contacts in New York. When Ellison's nameless protagonist finally disobeyed the injunction NOT to look at the contents of the briefcase, he found a scrap of paper which said, "Keep this n***** running".

I think that the Clinton-Obarak scenario didn't just happen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

johncp
Posted by: johnp on Jan 15, 2008 3:46 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a bunch of saps. You're falling into another trap set for you by the Rove crowd, who are desperately and strongly supporting Obama. Go to First Post and find out how Obama won Iowa, and will probably win S. Carolina. The author, in his cleverly written attack on Clinton uses remarks like "...another Nevada activist," or a "...Nevada political insider." He doesn't tell you who these "activists" and "insiders" are, who he claims, said nasty things about Hillary, because they probably don't exist. But he's confident you'll be dumb enough to believe him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: johncp Posted by: davescott
» RE: johncp Posted by:
Democracy only works when people vote the right way....
Posted by: cordas on Jan 15, 2008 3:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However their suit states that "by packing as much as 10 percent or more delegates into the county convention, the at-large precinct caucus system (created for the casinos) substantially diminishes the voting power of delegates from other county precinct caucuses."

Damn these uppity working class people for voting... Why can't they just leave it to their betters to decide who should be the next Dem candidate....

What a load of balony... This just proves how little certain candidates really care about democracy... Fight hard by all means but trying to stop certain groups from voting (or limiting the amount who can vote) is just ridiculous!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lets talk about issues.
Posted by: davescott on Jan 15, 2008 3:55 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Rosenfeld, many of us understand that you are an Obama supporter and contributor, as you have a perfect right to be. But you are blurring your role as his backer and your assumed role of being a journalist. Alleged Clinton campaign outrages" include Robert Johnson of Black Entertainment Television citing information that Obama put in his own book. Let's talk about the merits, please? I for one am utterly put off by Obama's claim that he will "end the politics of polarization." I believe he lacks enough experience at the national level to be President. And he is at least as capable of pandering to special interests as anyone -- witness his stated support for "coal to liquids," a greenhouse gas nightmare. Although to his credit, he backed off from that error.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: OK. CTL Posted by: gazooks
» RE: OK. CTL Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Lets talk about issues. Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: Lets talk about issues. Posted by: EncinoM
My opinion
Posted by: pkricker on Jan 15, 2008 4:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is my opinion, and my opinion only. I think that Hillary Clinton would make a bad president. I'm afraid that she is firmly in league with the same corporate culture that rules the current administration. I don't have a problem with the idea of ambitious women, I do have a problem with the idea of someone who wants to be president to fuel their ambitions. The office of President of the United States should go to someone who has the best interests of the nation and the people therein at heart - not to someone who merely wants to be President. Negative campaigning should always be a warning sign that someone is in the race for the wrong reasons, and blaming someone else in one's campaign for these behaviors is cowardice. If indeed, she is playing dirty she needs to be called on it and calling her on it is not an antifeminist act. Again, just my opinion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: My opinion Posted by: davescott
» RE: Some opinion Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
Dogs and a bone
Posted by: Poederbach on Jan 15, 2008 5:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's the story about the 2 dogs and a bone again?
Edwards may come out as the D nominee. He has the better story anyway if you look at "content" that is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh, please. Rosenfeld, are you REALLY listening to Hillary?
Posted by: halweiner on Jan 15, 2008 5:16 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It all started when she told the truth. Maybe she should lie like the rest of the pond scum running. It was Obama's PEOPLE ( he is too smart to get his hands dirty ) who misappropriated the words she used in discussing the obviously untouchable Martin Luther King, Jr. when she told the simple truth ( see the guy from BET standing up in S. Carolina ) that only a President can sign legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not an activist. That no one person, including MLK is responsible for the advances made by African-Americans. Please remember that the self-made man is a typical product of unskilled labor. Everyone rests on the shoulders of the people who thrust her or him forward. But this reminds me of the famous scene in Blackboard Jungle where the teacher gets slammed by some ignoramus ( or worse, deliberately by someone who knows better ) for saying something that is then completely taken out of context to suit an agenda. Hmmmmmmm..... that must be a new tactic. Nobody ever thought of that since Diogenes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The "Fairy Tale" in the Clinton Campaign
Posted by: cognitorex on Jan 15, 2008 5:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bill Clinton nakedly lied to the nation and the fact that the Democrats are not discussing it in no way means that it has gone away. His national standing was then so hemorrhaged that he became quasi toxic in the 2000 election thus single handedly denying Gore his Presidential due. It somehow seems dead wrong that a process has begun, the culmination of which will be to again place this once disgraced man in the White House. We live in the era where stardom supersedes values for the masses, a la American Idol and the "Brittany" effect, but primary voters and the Democratic Party should think long and hard before they offer philandering Bill the first spouse position.
I love Bill and could easily vote for the Clinton him/her or her/him combo but there is a "Fairy Tale" being told in the Clinton electioneering speeches.
The fairy tale is that Hillary can remotely match Mr Obama's ability to affect change in Washington. She/he can claim more experience in the legislative process, etc. but the fact that so many people despise her/him will end up with the legislative process being hallmarked by brutal antagonism. Look for the first ever Republican congressperson to perform self immolation rather than give Bill and Hillary passage of any historic legislation. Sadly, they simply have too much negative baggage to approach Mr. Obama's potential for a massive November turn out and his potential for systemic change in Washington and some modicum of national healing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "Fairy Tales" indeed Posted by: Joshua Holland
Getting it right in 2008
Posted by: puddytat on Jan 15, 2008 8:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tom Degan is definitely right. He knows exactly what he is talking about!! Hillary is pro corporate and that philosophy affects all of her decisions and attitudes. Many people fondly remember the Bill years of the 90's. Well folks, we will not be getting them back by putting Hillary in the White House. She has already announced plans to sit down at the table with corporate America and discuss what scraps they, (corporate America), are willing to give up to Joe Six Pack. Do you really think they are going to give up even remotely enough to make any difference? I don't think so. In my opinion, Obama has much more character, honesty, etc., etc. but he too wants to negotiate with corporate America. That simply will not work. Joe Q. Public will get very little in return. Edwards is the only one who has the character, the experience, and the where-with-all to go after the corporations and truly make a difference for "we the people". In his law practice, he has won numerous cases against big money corporate America. He has proven he has the desire, knowledge, expertise, and desire to make meaningful change here in America. Why do you think he is so totally ignored by the press? They are afraid of him. He is not one of them. They just want him to go away. They want somebody who is friendlier to them and will not cause they so much grief. They want Hillary or Obama to win!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Getting it right in 2008 Posted by: willymack
High Ground
Posted by: Southern Gal on Jan 15, 2008 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you want to talk campaign morality, (is there such a thing?) the candidate who has the high ground regarding his campaign is Dennis Kucinich. He has the progressive credentials - against the Iraq occupation, has plans to bring the troops home, has a health insurance plan for everyone. He supports peace, opposes torture, opposes Bush administrations' destruction of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. He has made the effort to begin impeachment of Cheney and Bush. The commercial media has trashed his campaign and made him fight for access to media and to debates. I believe that politicians are compromised by our system of financing campaigns. By the time they get the money to run a competitve campaign they owe everyone, particularly big business and lobbyists. Then they have to get coverage from the corporately owned media. We seem to be focusing on dissecting Clinton and Obama on race, gender and campaign tactics.We need to be pressing them on them on the economy, the Iraq occupation, health care, education, pre-emptive war, environment, energy conservation and development, etc. I hope people don't get so emotionally involved with a candidate, that if that person loses the Democratic nomination, that they refuse to support the candidate selected. As imperfect as these politicians may be they are heads above the Republican candicates and the alternative to the disaster of another Republican administration.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: High Ground Posted by: willymack
» RE: High Ground Posted by: puddytat
In the meantime, the DNC PUNISHES Michigan for trying to compete with primary tyranny !
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 15, 2008 9:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama and Hillary
Posted by: militaryhater on Jan 15, 2008 10:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With luck and their ugliness towards one another, they will end up 'canceling' each other out when voters tire of the both of them.

Ugliness and pettiness in a campaign can breed...the concept, 'you're both out'. Let the mud slinging continue, I don't like either of them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Primaries, don't you just love them
Posted by: solrev on Jan 15, 2008 10:58 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why would I care what two unions in Nevada are doing, I will let the people in the unions worry about it. Dirty tricks, no one fights dirtier than two unions who are trying to occupy the same space at the same time. Do not get me wrong, I think it is un-American not to be in a union. This is just some more American Idol BS. It would be irrational to think that sooner or later, race and gender would not come up in this election too. It would be even be more irrational to think that the media would not turn it into entertainment event. How can we elect an American Idol without some good entertainment? They never say much about issues and their web sites say even less. I can not tell you what I will do in case I can’t and I can’t tell you what I will not do in case I have to, but here is an issue I am for or against. If you are for or against that issue then vote for me (typ).

I would be real worried if I were a Demon. Foxy Loxy has been chanting from the beginning, “Hillary is number one”. They sure would like to run against her. If she wins they win and if she loses they win. Obama is just Hillary light; it’s the lack of experience. Being from Illinois, I know we produce the best fork tongue politicians in the country. However, not getting caught is an occupational hazard in Illinois. If Obama learned anything in Illinois, he learned that the name of the game is “let’s make a deal”. I guess that’s where he gets that uniter dream. We need a divider not a uniter; 8 years of the last uniter just about killed us. The divider Edwards, lack of money and media should take care of him. Edwards needs some new writers, some of those “Tippee canoe and Tyler too”, types. He just is not entertaining enough. I do not think Edwards knows the right battle to fight. He keeps saying that he would take on the power interests. The puppet masters is not where the battle belongs, the battle belongs in that nest of fork tongue vipers; we call congress. If you want to kill the snake kill the puppets. Someone should tell Edwards to quit acting like he is one of us. We have plenty of people on our side; we need someone in front of us. Kucinich has been AWOL from the vary beginning. He is just to ugly to be an American Idol and he just does not know how to make us an offer we can’t refuse.

Economy - we did not lower taxes enough and we did not control spending, or we would not be here now. I told you we could win that war. Beware the ides of McCain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Clinton's not doing anything different from the other politicians
Posted by: godsbedamned on Jan 15, 2008 11:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wholly agree with Gemababe. Clinton is derided on all fronts and in so many ways because of her gender. Often, as in this article, it's very, very subtle (but, what's underneath the outrage is crystal clear: how dare a woman act like this?). I've never liked the centrist tact Clinton has taken, but I understand now more than ever. She's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. And, there's a very limited space allowing even the possibility that a woman might get elected to higher office. Obama has voted identically identically almost to Clinton, but he's heralded as a hero and a man of convictions, who's beyond playing politics. (One example is his total lack of support for marriage equality. Why his supporters think he's so much for change and so ethical is beyond me.) Ugh.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
Just Another Glorious Day of Hate in Hillaryland
Posted by: Contessa1201 on Jan 15, 2008 12:23 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yikes, not another "Hillary is the Cause of Hell Freezing Over" harangue. Diatribes such as this one are mere character assassinations cloaked in Da Vinci Code patter. I want good minds to spend their time on construction not destruction. I want to see articles about all the things that are going to be facing us as a nation on the first day of the next presidency. I honestly believe the people who write articles like this are kissing cousins to those who are obsessed with the doings of Brittany Spears. Can't you people use your intelligence on something constructive? Why must Hillary be portrayed as some demonic she-devil whose every breath is to trick us into a hell of her making? You allow no grays -- just black or white, all good or all bad. That is not the form healthy logic or discourse should take. For sure it doesn't help us as a nation or for that matter, make for interesting reading except to those for whom hate has become their daily tonic of preference.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Witch of Walmart
Posted by: zooeyhall on Jan 15, 2008 2:09 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What else would you expect from this person, given her corporate whoring?

Dirty tricks?

Remember Jim Nabors' line in Gomer Pyle? "surpriiiise surpriiiiise!"

She might also deserve the epitath: "the Goblin of Globalization"

The "Free-trader Fury"?

"Corporate Concubine"?

Just look at her history--any of the above could be labled on her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Witch of Walmart Posted by: 1gma
Check up!
Posted by: Verjenie on Jan 15, 2008 5:06 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama did vote "present" 130 times when in office in Illinois.
See: Mother Jones 12.2007 archives.
This has the appearance of politics
with a future eye to a safe presidency (p.s. They all have to strategize!!!! The purest of the pure still has to play)
and regarding corporate suck-up his positions are
actually to the right of HRC's: i.e. Bob Herbert's article:NYTimes,
contents of Obama's Health Care Plan,
& League of Conservation Voters postion sheet.
Anyway this article has it's own slant.
In Nevada both unions need equal access to polls.
Everyone needs to easily vote.
Election day should be a Legal
Narional Holiday wth mandatory time off for those who have to
work (EMT's, firefighters, etc.) and poll availibility to ALL.
Regarding, equal accesibility, I am very worried about the new
voting I.D. laws (Indiana etc.) sanctioned by stacked courts which will disenfranchise 1,000's.
Mostly, I hope we're all dissing complacency and looking beneath the surface and beyond feel-good targets.
If we don't all dig, it's easy to be buried by tilting and falling contrived set-ups of all persuasions.
P.S. I'm a Kucinich supporter. Otherwise, still looking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary's dirty tricks
Posted by: Lowell on Jan 15, 2008 5:22 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm concerned that we are being fed too much Bill Clinton instead of Hillary Clinton. As a Democrat who supported him throughout the eight years he served as president, I am now disgusted with his behavior. I am also an African American male who didn't desert him during the Monica Lewinsky debacle.
For him to consider Obama's campaign as a fairy tale has ended my support. When we, as African Americans, trusted and supported him at a time when no one else would; when he was being sued by women who had affairs with him prior to Monica and when Hillary, in all her infinite ability to make decisions, decided to keep him; when we don't know what impact his behavior had on Chelsea, he gave us Monica Lewinsky. Now here comes Hillary propping him up before us once again, asking us to forget his past and rely on him as one of her future cabinet members. She is asking us to support her based on his reputation and we aren't that forgiving. For me, he needs to disappear and take his "decision-making" wife with him. I can't believe they expect to get through this process without someone bringing up Monica Lewinsky, so I am doing so with full knowledge that the Republicans are not going to overlook her. From crying in New Hampshire to forgiving a wandering husband, I tremble at the thought of her being the president of this country. Iowa's election gave us a perfect view into how angry she must really be, but she wants to punish the wrong man.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hillary's dirty tricks Posted by: Lowell
» RE: Hillary's dirty tricks Posted by: Lowell
» RE: Hillary's dirty tricks Posted by: desidid
Alternet has decided.... the candidate will be Obama and the NaziGOP will win
Posted by: xbj on Jan 15, 2008 5:29 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Removing a post that CORRECTED the FASLE LYING INFORMATION in this article that the Hillary campaign had NOTHING to do with the lawsuit; it was brought by the TEACHER'S UNION.

Thanks SO much for making your bias PERFECTLY clear.

Alternet obviously wants the GOP to win, and is backing Rove's "can't-possibly-win" candidate Hussein Nader Obama.

Good to know; good to know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Correction Posted by: xbj
Dems., Keep Your Powder Dry for November!
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 15, 2008 6:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am no fan of either Hillary or Obama. To me, they are both corporation candidates projecting a false persona of supporting the common man (or woman). That said, this article is a little bit much for me in that I don't really understand the point. Is this some kind of massive attack on opponent voters, or just some kind of political hack struggle? Is it 2000 in Florida, where thousands of blacks were thrown off the election rolls and the Supreme Court decided the election? Or 2004 in Ohio where entire precincts of votes disappeared? I don't think so, to me it sounds more like a bunch of kids bickering. The Dems need to keep the powder dry, they will need plenty of it when the big vote comes in November. When the Repubs. take the gloves off. When all the voters in Massachusetts mysteriously vote for Huckabee or McCain, when road blocks in poor neighboorhoods keep voters from the polls. We all know it is coming.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why shouldn't ALL workers have a level playing field?
Posted by: xbj on Jan 15, 2008 8:50 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This lawsuit here in Nevada objects to the caucuses, for the very first time, being "hosted" by casinos, so workers (most of them culinary) will not have to take off of work to vote and participate. Furthermore, there will be STRONG union and peer pressure in these rooms to support Obama, the candidate that the culinary has picked and that the Big GOP casino owners obviously want to win as their "can't-possibly-win" choice.

Why should the culinary union get a break to participate, when EVERYONE ELSE IN NEVADA HAS TO TAKE OFF WORK TO VOTE IN THE CAUCUSES? Does that sound fair to you?

Dirty tricks? I'll say. But NOT from Hillary's camp.

Who benefits? This transparent ploy HANDS the nomination to Obama on a silver culinary hotel platter.

This post is nothing but a hatchet job. Alternet, this is so beneath you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not surprised!
Posted by: HipsterSarah on Jan 16, 2008 7:17 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Clintons are desperate and will do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to claw their way back into the white house and a position of power!

Obama wants to run a campaign on the issues and has enough confidence in his record to run a clean campaign.

Hillary does NOT want to discuss her record, affiliations and baggage because she knows that people will not vote for her in office.

GO OBAMA!! NEW SCHOOL POLITICS of the FUTURE.

Out with the old style, in with the NEW!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Read the facts
Posted by: HipsterSarah on Jan 16, 2008 7:22 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For an ACCURATE report about this lawsuit, Google "Nevada Teachers Lawsuit."

The DNC and state democratic party had NO problem with their decision to allow those union workers to caucus in the casinos....UNTIL Obama got the endorsement!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Clinton shady
Posted by: dealmeinfo2 on Jan 16, 2008 8:53 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
See, thats why I personally don't want the Clinton's to win again, they are famous for using dirty campaign tricks, Bill did the same stuff. I am voting Obama, but this does not surprise me at all. This is why I find politics so frustrating, too bad there is pretty much no way to stop all the bull crap that goes on.



-----------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota Estate Planning Mortgage Companies

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The dirty tricks are all GOP and all from Karl Rove and his shill Obama, not Clinton
Posted by: xbj on Jan 16, 2008 8:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This lawsuit here in Nevada objects to the caucuses, for the very first time, being "hosted" by casinos, so workers (most of them culinary) will not have to take off of work to vote and participate. Furthermore, there will be STRONG union and peer pressure in these rooms to support Obama, the candidate that the culinary has picked and that the Big GOP casino owners obviously want to win as their "can't-possibly-win" choice.

Why should the culinary union get a break to participate, when EVERYONE ELSE IN NEVADA HAS TO TAKE OFF WORK TO VOTE IN THE CAUCUSES? Does that sound fair to you?

Dirty tricks? I'll say. But NOT from Hillary's camp.

Who benefits? This transparent ploy HANDS the nomination to Obama on a silver culinary hotel platter.

This post is nothing but a hatchet job. Alternet, this is so beneath you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gaildolly
Posted by: yellowdog on Jan 16, 2008 12:49 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When my husband and I attended the Florida State Convention the rules were that NO candidate could have paid staff there. All of the other candidates abided by that rule except ONE -- Hillary Clinton. She had paid staff on the ground and running. The Clintons do NOT abide by ANY rules ... they do as they please, and trample over anyone and anything they wish to. Comparing them to JFK or any other candidate in the past is like comparing apples and oranges. They are beyond comparison -- they are a species unto themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: gaildolly Posted by: Bibsi
Hillary will be another atypical US president, and I mean that in the most derogatory fashion
Posted by: Tim Charles on Jan 16, 2008 4:59 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before any real, substantial progress can be made in the USA, the whole electoral system needs to be reviewed. You need to start a non-partisan National Electoral Commission that is responsible for the handling of ALL elections nationwide, and you need to look into ways of ensuring that all the leading candidates: 1. Don't have to be millionaires to get there in the first place and 2. Don't need to get millions in dollars from big business in order to finance their campaign to get elected, hence compromising their ability to instigate real change once they are elected.

I am Australian, but have studied US politics extensively and am always amazed at how poor the US system is in the first place, as the way it is currently it doesn't lend itself to letting the best candidates A. become candidates in the first place, or B. actually win the nomination.

As long as these systems are in place, you'll continue to have people like Hillary Clinton wanting to be president, just so she can be president, not so she can actually help get the US out from the gutter of international politics....

Tim

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just your opinion
Posted by: Pansy on Jan 17, 2008 11:53 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I fail to see how any of the examples you cited could be interpreted as a "suppression" of the vote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More Typical Sexist Crap on Alternet
Posted by: SparkyClinton on Jan 21, 2008 8:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is another good example of the latent sexism of Alternet posters. I suspect you'd rather vote for Romney or Huckabee than a woman for president.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]