Saturday, January 19, 2008

Clinton's Victory In Nevada Doesn't Translate To A Delegate Victory.

Sure, Hillary Clinton may have won the popularity vote in the presidential caucus that was held today in Las Vegas. But surprisingly, in what is really meaningful, the number of delegates that will be sent to the Democratic National Convention, the winner was Barack Obama. Sen. Obama won thirteen delegates to Sen. Clinton's twelve. Overall, Clinton leads the delegates race with 236, including separately chosen party and elected officials known as superdelegates. Obama has a total of 136, and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards has 50.

This race turned decidedly testy in the last few days of the campaign. Most media is suggesting that it came from the Obama camp and the Culinary union. Of course when has the mainstream media ever been known to be aware of what was really going on?

It was Clinton supporters who filed a lawsuit to prevent the at-large precinct sites on the Las Vegas strip after the Culinary Union endorsed Obama. They did this in fear that the large constituency of union workers would cause her to lose these large caucus sites. In actuality, the hotels, who supported Clinton (more on this later), prevented many culinary workers from attending the caucus. Page after page of culinary workers who had requested to attend the caucus were denied to attend by their management. They did however, ensure that any of their management that went to support Clinton, were allowed to attend. In fact, after the time that the doors to the caucus were supposed to be locked and no more admittance was allowed, they were still letting management in to caucus.

The Obama team and the Culinary Union were warned that they would be drawn back into court if they had any campaign paraphernalia outside the caucus area, and organizers were not allowed near the caucus area. How funny that the outside was lined with Clinton posters, people passing out buttons and t-shirts and encouraging people to vote for Clinton. The T-shirts tried to fool union members by having the slogan, "I Support My Union. I Support Hillary".

I was supposed to caucus today at Bellagio, but at the last moment was told that since I had requested the day off, trying not to inconvenience my department by having to leave my shift for a couple of hours to participate, that I was not allowed to vote at Bellagio. Only workers who were scheduled for a shift were allowed to participate. I had to rush back home to get to my precinct in order to caucus.

This morning, when I went to Bellagio to work with the union organizers, we were honored by Barack Obama making an appearance in the Bellagio Employee Dining Room. It was a visit that the Clinton campaign did not want to happen, even though Bill Clinton had been making the rounds into the hotels all week. Yesterday, Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea spent the afternoon in the Bellagio employee dining room, but when word came out that Obama was going to be there this morning, she complained that he shouldn't be allowed to come there to try and sway employees. Of course, since the Clinton's were staying at Bellagio, she almost got her wish.

Personally, I think the real reason the hotel executives were promoting Clinton, is that they know that she is unelectable against ANY republican candidate in the November general election. She is so polarizing as a candidate, that democrats who do not like her would never vote for her even if she is their candidate. Republicans, meanwhile, would become united against what they view as their ultimate enemy.

The general opinion about why the Culinary endorsement for Obama did not translate into a victory, is that they waited too late to give the endorsement. Theorists say that if they had made the endorsement six weeks earlier, their organizing skills could have translated to an Obama victory. This may be true. I just wonder how much dirtier the Clinton campaign tactics, taken from the Karl Rove handbook, would have become.


Clyde said...

I'm glad you were able to meet Obama and it does seem as if you took a bite of the apple. But to say Hilary is unelectable sounds like you've been reading one too many of the pundits, or you've been hanging around too much lately with some of the Obama supporters who have shown themselves to be quite the spiteful and hateful things when you question anything at all in regards to Barack Obama, Superstar.

Is Hilary unelectable in a good portion of the Southern States? The answer of course is yes. But then, so is Mr.Obama. So is any Democrat. There are just those in certain parts of the country who will always view any Democrat as evil.

Frankly, some of your comments are strangely reminiscent of those I receive when I knock an American Idol contestant, but it's the kind of spite filled rhetoric which have come from many of the Obama supporters these days, or someone like Rush Limbaugh. Maybe Obama's supporters are transcribing right wing media talking points these days.

And unfortunately, Mr. Obama, beyond being able to deliver some fiery prose, has about as much substance as the contestants on a reality tv show, or those who watch it with the same kind of empty undiscerning fanaticism that seems to be what makes this country tick these days. Basically, he seems to be an empty suit, and just as Hilary has, Obama has shown himself more than willing to do the little dance in more than one instance and just like Hilary has shown that he is more than willing to try and have his cake and eat it too. The biggest difference, Hilary is obvious, Obama is sneaky and slick. (Slick Obamy?)

And just like Hilary, his campaign coffers have been filled by the same corporate masters, although he and his supporters along with the media continually want to deny or overlook that fact, apparently in the same manner that your union leaders did.

There have been clues as to the true nature of Mr. Obama. There was his appeasement of the right wing by inviting a homphobic bigot to perform at one of his rallies while supposedly denouncing the same discrimination this performer continually campaigned for. (Having your cake and eating it too). There was his holding up Ronald Reagan as a symbol of all that is great, even when Reagan began a downward spiral in this country when it comes to Union Representation (having your cake and eating it too.) Waiting until it was already decided to vote against a war funding bill, instead of leading a drive against it (having your cake and eating it too.) So tell me what is so different and special about Obama other than some nice prose? And if you're going to support him, tell me exactly what it is he intends to do, don't simply write about the awfulness of every other candidate and the nasty deeds they have done unless of course you are going to do as I do and write about the nasty deeds of all of them.

This is by no means a comment on the worthiness of Hilary, Obama, or Edwards. But for those who believe that any one of the Republican Candidates would be a better choice than any of those three, then it wouldn't matter who was running against the Republican candidate, be it Hilary, Edwards, or Obama. Your comment about Hilary being un-electable sounds like it came directly from the Obama campaign headquarters or Chris Matthews (take your pick).

Wasn't it just a week ago that you were lamenting the fact that the Union leadership had selected him? So one good speech and you're suddenly convinced otherwise. I rest my case. As for myself, I'm just waiting until the primary season and I hope those Democrats who are tearing each other's candidates apart with all this foolishness, don't end up hurting the Party in the General Election. An that includes Saint Obama of the Illinois.

riesen2b said...

Glad to know I finally posted something that would inspire someone to share their views. While I don't agree with everything you write, I do concur with some of it. However, comparing me to Chris Matthews, whom I have never watched, (other than him singing his love for Hillary after the debate last Tuesday), is off the mark. As far as substance, I think both candidates, if you bother to look into what their positions and plans are for the issues, match up pretty evenly. My biggest concern is whether, if one or the other becomes president, will they be able to work with congress to get things done.
My articles were meant to give an idea of what was occuring in the state of Nevada this week as we came closer to the caucus.
And where you got your information as to what Obama said about Reagan must have come from the Clinton website. The jist of his comment was that Reagan came along and took the country in a direction that it wanted to go to at that time because they wanted change from what had been going on in the seventies, just as now he believes the country is looking for change from where it has headed for the last eight years. Hardly a mandate for what Reagan did, but an intelligent observation of the way it was.
All of this being said, no matter who the Democratic candidate is, I will be supporting them in November. Yesterday, at the caucus, I was selected as a delegate to the county convention where our platform will be created and our delegates for the national convention will be selected. That will happen on February 23 and I will keep you informed.

Clyde said...

Actually, I knew what he said about Clinton, and the Chris Matthews comment was an exercise in sarcasm. But I don't care what your reasoning is, or what you say it is, you are holding Reagan up to try and cater to the St. Ronald of the Reagans Republican crowd and any Democrat who holds him up for any reason should be ashamed simply because of the tactics Reagan and his predecessors have used over the years to suppress the working class. Yes, he was an agent of change all right, change that has since turned this country into the United States of Corporate America.

But like I said. No matter. You do what you feel you must do. It's out of my hands and I'm just waiting for November. But all the anti Hillary rhetoric doesn't help matters, doesn't do anyone any good, makes your candidate look bad, and some of the stuff you are posting is Republican propaganda that has been spouted over and over again for the past sixteen years. My suggestion: post some positive stuff about your candidate and examine his platform in detail since you are so high on him.

We are not picking who will be running anyway. It is the media who has designated Obama and Hilary to be the front runners, not the voters, who only seem to dance to their tune.


Related Posts Widget for Blogs by LinkWithin

Get The Official Blog-o-Rama Widget!

Keep up with all the latest info on the blog-o-rama by posting this to your blog or my space page. You can also scroll this widget to go directly to the latest article that you are interested in. Give it a try!