I've been tough on Hillary Clinton lately for speaking falsely about Barack Obama and his record on the Iraq war. (See here and here.) But I have to say this: Clinton and her allies are right about Nevada. They have been blasting the process that will be used in the January 19 caucus. Clinton has groused about caucuses in general, complaining that because caucus meetings occur at a specific time, many voters (say, those who have to be at work) miss out and are disenfranchised. All that is true--though I doubt Clinton would have adopted the role of Ms. Empowerment if Iowa and Nevada were good states for her. In Nevada, though, one step implemented in response to that criticism may end up hurting her. But whether or not it's bad for Clinton, this reform still warrants second thoughts.
In Nevada, Clinton is at a disadvantage because the major Democratic political player with street muscle--the Culinary Workers Union--endorsed Obama last week. This union has tens of thousands of members it can bus, shove, or escort to the caucuses. And the union won't have to push or guide them too far, for the state Democratic Party has arranged to hold caucuses in nine of Las Vegas's biggest unionized casinos.
On one level, you can say, isn't this great? It will be so much easier for blackjack dealers, cocktail waitresses, bellhops, cabbies and others to participate. But there is something a little creepy about a setup in which a union drives its members to a room at the workplace and then these members have to vote in public. (Remember, in a caucus, you don't go into a voting booth; you stand in a corner of a room.) Presumably union leaders will be there watching whom stands where. Certainly, the same dynamic might have been at play in some caucus sites in Iowa, but not in as an intense manner.
You can't blame the Obama campaign for accepting the support of the dominant union and deriving the benefits of a system set up by the state party. (One amusing note: many casino execs are Clinton supporters, and the pro-Obama union is using their casinos to help Obama.) And the caucusing-in-the-casino arrangement was cooked up long before CWU's endorsement of Obama in order to boost participation--not to benefit any specific candidate. Yet it's not a good deal for democracy. Not that I expect there will be union goons present enforcing the Obama endorsement. But people ought to be able to vote free of any concern--real or imagined.
This makes me sympathetic to the argument that caucuses ought to be abolished in favor of elections--but not sympathetic to the lawsuit filed by the Nevada State Education Association, which has gone to court to shut down the casino caucuses. (The group has not endorsed Clinton but several of its leaders support her.) It's hard not to suspect that politics, rather than principle, propelled that union to try to thwart what could be a big day for Obama.
It's no surprise that politics in Las Vegas has become a whirl of wheeling and dealing. The Clintonites are entitled to be pissed off about the casino caucuses, but that does not place them on the moral high ground. Such real estate is quite difficult to find in Sin City.
![[RSS]](http://67.192.49.194/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Comments
Sounds like Obama is still be the candidate for change and the HRC side opting for the status quo.
Questions about the process should have been made (and likely were made) when the process was created. Grousing about it at this late date is just a preemptive strike to try to justify a projected close call or loss.
Let them stand and be counted - the union bosses will always be there to count heads as will the corporate bosses, religious bosses, community leaders, etc. - the caucuses are a two edged sword but not an invalid process.
Posted by: capt
| January 14, 2008 2:33 PM
is still - drop the "be"
Posted by: capt
| January 14, 2008 2:34 PM
D. Taylor, the secretary-treasurer of Culinary Local 226, criticized the lawsuit as “despicable” and “disgusting.”
“I never thought we’d have people in the Democratic Party try to disenfranchise women, people of color and large numbers of working people in this state,” Mr. Taylor said. “I am sure every single elected official in Nevada will renounce it, and so will the Clinton campaign.
“If there’s not a renouncing of it,” he added, “then there’s an agreement with it.”
~~~~
Looks like the Dems are only for the working class when it comes to their votes.
Posted by: LBH
| January 14, 2008 2:43 PM
Senator Clinton is upset because of what has been referred to as "the Bradley factor" will not be extant in the Nevada caucuses.
The theory goes that blacks always (Mayor Tom Bradley, Governor Douglas Wilder, Mayor David Dinkins, et al) fare more poorly in secret-ballot elections than in caucuses because whites (e.g. Iowa) don't want to admit in public that they won't vote (e.g. New Hampshire) for a black candidate.
Although mendacious, Senator Clinton is not stupid. She understands human nature, however despicable, and wants to play it to her advantage. Ergo, the lawsuit from the teachers' union.
Does anyone believe that this lawsuit didn't come directly on orders from Howard Wolfson? (I would say Sid the Squid ordered it, but I believe he was in jail on aggravated DUI charges at the time.)
Tom
Posted by: Tomcantu
| January 14, 2008 6:08 PM
If HRC and her camp think this will work to their advantage let the lawsuits fly.
Let the people decide if that kind of thing is what we want in politics.
Let the candidates perish by self inflicted wounds.
Posted by: capt
| January 14, 2008 6:27 PM
I like the lean toward fairness I guess, but the union intimidation angle is a bit forced. I know LV is a neo-labor strong hold but I think we're still a ways away from predicting goon squads dirty eyeballing the rank and file at a caucus. The new union movement (which dominates LV organizing, is all about bending over backwards not to alienate workers.
I don't live in LV but my local is a perfect example of leadership exerting almost zero control over our members political leanings. About 15% of members participate in a voluntary .02% /hr PAC fund, and whenever Democrats and Progressives stop in before a monthly meeting to make campaign stumps, half the local loudly pillories them on their gun control stances, immigration positions, tax policies, etc. I'll bet Las Vegas is little different, union leadership knows they are first and foremost there to serve their members collective local workplace interests (wages/benefits, job opportunities and working conditions) and forcing their hand (rather than simply educating and suggesting) on macro politics will probably cost them much more than they stand to gain.
I think this concern is far out weighed by the fact that these extra caucusing precincts may give some voters who may normally not have voted or participated the chance to taste democracy for the first time. I say caucus as many places as possible.
Posted by: jimstevens
| January 15, 2008 10:26 PM
Post A Comment