While the media focuses on the supposed “race-card” battle between the candidates (the latest, sexy narrative….and, despite the fact that it’s been entirely Clinton supporters involved — rather than her campaign — and Obama only responding, it’s portrayed in the media as somehow both candidates fault for “dirty politics.”)….keep your eye on the things that are actually happening.
Remember when Clinton complained that the caucus process in Iowa disenfranchised voters who “worked at night”, etc.?
Well, isn’t it funny that the Nevada State Teachers Union (who have endorsed Clinton) has filed a lawsuit to block the Nevada law that creates “at-large” precincts inside nine Las Vegas resorts on caucus day — created primarily so that casino and resort employees have a place to have their vote counted.
Entirely coincidental, I’m sure, that the lawsuit was filed two days after the 60,000-member Culinary Workers Union, whose members work (and would caucus) at those sites, endorsed Obama.
I guess the caucus process is only unfair if it means that you lose. Then it’s OK to disenfranchise voters.
Unbelievable
The woman is an immoral political predator. Unbelievable. And people are still going to vote for her because a) she tells them whatever they want to hear (“now I’m the candidate for change, now I’m the candidate of the youth” …), and b) she’s a Clinton.
Re: Unbelievable
It’s the b) that bothers me the most.
Hell, I was an ardent supporter of Bill….but I recognize that a Hilary presidency will just be a continuation of the bitter partisan divisiveness that has crippled this country, and a fairly disturbing bit of dynasticism to boot. Do we really need either a Bush or a Clinton serving in the White House for a potential 36 years? (1980 – 1988 Pappy as VP, 1988-1992 Pappy as Prez, 92-2000 Bill as Prez, 2000-2008 W as Prez, 2008 to potentially 2016 Hilary?)
Of course it’s only “unfair” if it causes *you* to lose. That’s always been the way the game is played, neh?