Hillary wants as many people as possible to participate but has no opinion on the lawsuit

[BeyondGeography]

Hillary Clinton and Rory Reid on the caucus lawsuit

Hillary Clinton's Nevada chairman Rory Reid traveled to Reno with her today. Asked what he knew about the lawsuit before it was filed, he simply said he'd heard chatter about people being angry at the unfairness of the at-large precincts. But he denied the Clinton campaign had anything to do with its filing.

"Nevada is a small state and sometimes people are inclined to always try and connect the dots," he said. "But this shouldn't be a process story. It should be a story about whether the process is fair."

Reid said the campaign hasn't read the lawsuit, but that the campaign will follow whatever the judge decides.

Asked about the lawsuit Clinton said:

"I know about the lawsuit. I hope it can be resolved by the courts and by the state party. Obviously, we want as many people as possible to participate."

In a later interview, I asked Clinton again about the lawsuit. She repeated her criticism of the caucus process, that it leaves too many people out and said she wants as many people as possible to participate. Does she support the lawsuit?

"I have no opinion on the lawsuit."

Does she have an opinion on the at-large precincts as a way to make the process more fair?

"I don't. I just don't know."

http://www.rgj.com/blogs/inside-nevada-politics/2008/01/rory-reid-on-caucus-lawsuit.html

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. How About The Observant Jews Who Can't Vote Because The Caucus Is Held On The Sabbath?

~

[BeyondGeography]

2. How about making it harder for union members to caucus after they've endorsed your opponent

and then claiming you're all about voter participation?

[HeraldSquare212]

3. Yes,Clinton is such the people's champion here

She complained that in Iowa some people couldn't vote because they had to work; now she's complaining that some some people can vote because the caucus is at their workplace (and there's no doubt she's connected to this - for those who feel otherwise, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you). How many free passes does she get in the primaries for things done by her surrogates?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. That Doesn't Answer My Question

Why schedule a caucus on the Sabbath when observant Jews can't vote?

Last time I checked Jewish folks were citizens...

[Tarc]

9. Since when do we make allowances for religion in politics?

This isn't Israel.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. "This Isn't Israel"

Really

Would a party hold a caucus on Christmas? Easter? Good Friday?

When you answer that you answered your own question

[Tarc]

15. Apples and oranges, son.

Those are once-a-year holidays that you are comparing to just a generic "Sunday" that you don't think we should hold caucuses on. Nice try.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. They Are Holy Days As Is The Sabbath

And I'm not your son...Thank God...

[Tarc]

49. Thank god indeed

Your rabble-rousing here is just plain silly. If you want to live in a theocracy, I'll buy you a one-way ticket elsewhere.

[dsc]

36. Do you seriously think a state would dare have a caucus on a Sunday?

[lapfog_1]

26. Or even on a Sunday...

and the answer is no, they would not.

Why Saturday? I guess that they figured most people work from Monday till Friday, and, as we have just pointed out, Sunday would be out of the question for the good little God fearing Christians... So that leaves Saturday.

And there aren't any observant Jews in Vegas, baby!

(OK, just kidding... obviously that chose it because the most could attend on that day... choosing comfort of the masses over religious values... someone else's religious values).

Besides, why even have a caucus anyway? Not smart. Better to have a vote with Instant Runoff Voting and paper ballots that can be filled out anytime and simply turned in or mailed by a date. Nah... that would be too easy... and wouldn't allow for the opportunity to disenfranchise a boatload of voters.

[Joe the Revelator]

47. As an observant Jew, you are way off base here.

[HeraldSquare212]

12. You'd need to ask the party that came up with the plan

and the campaigns that approved it.

But here's a first-person account of someone actually asking the party that question:

A young Jewish woman at the Nevada Democratic Party told me that they had tried to put caucus-sites near religious neighborhoods and synagogues so that people could walk; precinct captains would be educated about the need to write down information on behalf of observant Jews instead of asking them to sign-in and write themselves


http://blog.faithinpubliclife.org/2008/01/observant_jews_effectively_bar.html

[karynnj]

51. Thanks - real information

it looks like they have worked to deal with the issue.

[rodeodance]

8. She has made a statement about people who are not able to participate--lots of them

who are not able to be there at that time.

[rodeodance]

13. HAVE TO TAKEN ANY SPECIFIC ACTION TO HELP FIX THE SYSTEM?

[karynnj]

50. What does that have to do with the issue before the court?

Has the Orthodox Jewish community in Nevada made this an issue? Have the Democrats worked out a method to accommodate them to allow them to participate without violating halaca (Jewish law)? If they stayed within walking distance of the caucus place and did not have to write, it might be possible. (I know that in the Monsey, NY area there was at least one Orthodox Jew who could participate in chess tournaments on Shabbat years ago, as long as someone did the timer for him.)

[Bishop Rook]

52. How about we make it MORE fair instead of LESS?

I see a lot of people talking about those who are so unfairly excluded from the process because they don't get at-large caucuses...

Fine, sue the state to grant at-large caucuses to them so they can vote.

Don't sue the goddamn state to specifically disenfranchise the ones who already have it.

The system is 100% fair, so the solution is to make it less fair? Where does that even come from?

[rodeodance]

5. I think she should stay out of it---all candidates should at this point

[boston bean]

6. Voter disenfranchisement happens in many ways one of the ways is

when there is an advantage given one group of people and leaving another out.

Just reverse it, you might see the god damn stupidity of your argument.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. They Did A Nice Job Of Disenfranchising Observant Jews

~

[Bishop Rook]

53. What makes you think Jews can't caucus on the Sabbath?

I don't see anything like that in the melachot.

[BeyondGeography]

10. The rules were agreed upon months ago

the lawsuit was only filed after the CWU endorsement. Look at the timing and you might see the goddamned stupidity of your argument.

[boston bean]

14. You're right, Obama would never consider doing anything like this

just that fuckin god damn hillary.

You are going to be very disappointed one day. You need to get your head out of the sand. You are living in la la land.

But maybe i'm wrong, obama just might be the second coming of jesus who would never do any wrong.

Where were you on disenfranchisement when Obama was busing in Illinois resident to Iowa, stacking the deck.

[karynnj]

54. Obama did not bus "Illinois residents" to Iowa

There were IOWA COLLEGE students, home for Christmas, who returned. HRC's own campaign was encouring the college students supporting her to return as well. One of the top volunteers in Clinton's college outreach was an out of state college senior. This is just hypocrisy.

Not to mention that this would be the opposite of disenfranchisement - it helped people to vote.

[Bishop Rook]

57. As pointed out before, it was busing Iowa students

Not Illinois students.

Which is not only perfectly legal and ethical, it's standard get-out-the-vote practice.

Again, disenfranchisement has nothing to do with which candidate has the advantage. It's a matter of whether people are able to vote or not. The Iowa caucuses were moved into a timeframe where thousands of college students would have been excluded from voting because of winter break--so the Obama camp provided buses to bring them back to the state.

That's enfranchisement--exactly the opposite.

[rodeodance]

16. btw The article says NOTHING about asking Edwards or Obama.

[BeyondGeography]

18. Here's an Obama NV campaign statement about the lawsuit from another article

==David Cohen, the Obama campaign's Nevada state director, said in a written statement: "We believe as a party, and a country, we should be looking for ways to include working men and women in the electoral process, not disenfranchise them."==

http://www.lvrj.com/news/13746892.html

[rodeodance]

21. So, Obama does not have a personal opine either. Thanks.

[flpoljunkie]

19. How disingenuous! If you're truly against suppressing the vote, you'd be against this lawsuit.

[boston bean]

22. If you were truly against suppressing the vote, you'd be for this lawsuit.

My god, can't people see beyond their own self interest.

Let me try to make this as simple as possible:

Disenfranchisement works both ways. Giving one candidate an unfair advantage (in this case more delegates) because of a recent change in election policy disenfranchises other voters by watering down their vote.

If you are truly against suppressing votes, you would be able to see how it cuts both ways.

[flpoljunkie]

27. Why then did they wait until Obama received the Culinary Workers endorsement to file this lawsuit?

Case closed.

[boston bean]

28. If the shoe were on the other foot you would be singing a different tune.

get real here will ya?

[flpoljunkie]

44. Fact: Hillary camp was for the at-large precincts before they were against them.

Spin that! A number of the plaintiffs were part of the unanimous decision to create the at-large precincts in Las Vegas.

[Bishop Rook]

56. The shoe will never be on the other foot

Because Obama doesn't need to be in the business of disenfrachising voters to win.

If he ever was, I'd drop him like a hot potato.

[Bishop Rook]

55. The change in election policy was not recent

And this challenge came, of course, only after the culinary workers' union went for Obama.

And disenfranchisement has nothing to do with which candidate has an advantage, it has to do with allowing people to vote. The at-large caucuses allow thousands of people to caucus who otherwise wouldn't have been able to.

If there are some who still aren't able to caucus, let's work on including them, instead of excluding the culinary workers. Eh?

[babylonsister]

20. Of course she has no opinion because her camp instigated it.

That's pretty obvious, and ignorance is bliss. :eyes:

[boston bean]

23. Link please? nt

[babylonsister]

24. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2669841

[boston bean]

25. That is a ridiculous article that implies Hillary is behind it.

I support the suit because it is disenfranchising other voters.

[babylonsister]

29. If it walks like a duck... And if this was so very important to

her, why wasn't the suit filed prior to the culinary union declaring their endorsement of Obama? The timing stinks, and I think that stink comes from the Clinton camp.

[boston bean]

30. Again, if BO were in a different set of shoes, what would your opinion be?

Atleast I can be honest.

[babylonsister]

31. Huh? What's dishonest about what I'm observing? And I think it'd

smell coming from anyone; it's dirty pool and is self-serving obviously. The 'win at any cost' trumps disenfranchizing voters; I didn't expect that from a Dem.

[boston bean]

32. You only see one side of disenfranchisement. That is sad.

Atleast I can see both.

If you are going to have polling stations where union workers who have endorsed a candidate in their place of employment, why shouldn't it be that way for everyone.

You are right this smells and winning at any cost should not trump this ideal, but you have blinders on if you don't think that this disenfranchises voters in the exact opposite way.

[babylonsister]

33. Again, why wasn't this brought forth months ago? Now we see it as

a reaction to the endorsement because Clinton didn't get it. Who has the blinders on?
I'm done and not swayed by you.

[boston bean]

35. Do you understand politics?

Of course none of the three were going to jeopardize the possible endorsement. But all three probably had plans on what to do if they didn't get it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

42. Ay yay yay

Could you contradict yourself any more?

[BeyondGeography]

34. This isn't just any set of workers, it's the casino industry in Las Vegas

Saturday is the busiest day of the week, and the facilities themselves are as large as airports. These arrangments were made to give working people a chance to caucus and they were agreed to by some of the very people who are now plaintiffs in this lawsuit.

At least you acknowledge this smells.

[babylonsister]

37. Hmmm, crickets! nt

[chascarrillo]

38. Letting as many people vote as possible is "disenfranchisement"???

Sorry, but that's just retarded.

[City Lights]

39. "Winning at all costs."

That describes Clinton's attitude nicely, IMHO. The devil is in the timing. This is a sour grapes lawsuit. If Hillary had won the CWU endorsement, disenfranchising voters would be a moot point and this lawsuit wouldn't have been filed.

[City Lights]

40. This lawsuit would stink no matter who filed it.

At least I'm consistent.

[SoxFan]

48. Keep telling yourself that

The Nevada chapter of the NEA? Backing Hillary.
AFSCME? Backing Hillary.
The law firm handling the case? Tied to Hillary.

Nope, no connection to Hillary.

[AngryAmish]

58. wtf?

silly

[alcibiades_mystery]

41. Excuse me while I

go piss myself laughing.

Who believes this stuff?

Hilarious. :rofl:

[Enrique]

43. abide by the judge's decision????!!!!??

let a JUDGE resolve a dispute involving LAWS??!!??!!

Outrageous! :sarcasm:

[tokenlib]

45. At least she's consistant! n/t

[cloudythescribbler]

46. Also, those interested in the NV lawsuit, CHECK THIS OUT:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4052397

is this kosher to do? it seems an efficient way to get key information to those interested in the issue