Okay, so Hillary's campaign and Obama's campaign said enough of the racism and sexism accusations, and the same applies to what they want of their supporters. And so now we're treated to endless expositions on why Hillary was right and not racist, and why polar explorers prove that men are sexist. When the campaigns said to knock it off, I said, now we'll see who walks the talk. And we have.
Obama stands proud, more than I can say for Hillary apologists.
Anyway, I'm not posting this just to rag on the continuing Clinton-mania around here, I'm also repeating a post I made in another thread about a newsworthy item I just saw, something I think deserves attention because it will have great effect on the Nevada race.
Obama just won Nevada! Well, not quite, yet. But Hillary's minions lost the case to prevent the casino caucuses. The vote will go on at the casinos, thus helping local 226 of the Culinary Workers Union, which is endorsing Obama. That means 60,000 votes are about to go to Obama, plus friends and families, thus making for an even larger victory. Worse for Hillary, trying to prevent these local elections will play very badly for her among the other voters. You don't win Democratic votes by trying to disenfranchise other voters. And, yes, it is yet another example of how Obama uses the caucus system, or lack thereof really, to win. Did you all expect anything less from the guy at the top of the Cook County machine than this kind of mastery of voting rules?
Anyway, details are at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-7235197,00.html
Also, it sounds like Clinton's sock puppet -- Nevada's state teachers union which actually filed the suit to stop the casino caucuses -- is now refusing to continue to be Clinton's sock puppet. They say they won't appeal.
You all thought Hillary pulled a big upset in New Hampshire, but she didn't. She held onto her "firewall" state was all she did, by a damn thin and charred thread. And now, the rest of her campaign hopes are going down. Remember, this is the candidate with probably the greatest name recognition of any of the candidates, and she couldn't even get 56% of the vote, UNOPPOSED, in the Michigan Demcratic primary. No wonder she's starting to campaign in what was to be off-limits Florida, she doesn't have any choice if she wants to win. After South Carolina and Nevada, Obama will have tremendous momentum. Unfortunately for Hillary, the media are acting like it's a close race or, believe it or not, acting like Hillary's the front runner. That meme's about to be exploded in South Carolina and Nevada, and her campaign will suffer for it, big time. Obama's going to be a big winner. Personally, I'm looking forward to the return of the Left Coaster from the current Clinton Coaster.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 17, 2008 04:37 PMbrian,
i'm not going to waste time reading your drivel, but i think califano adds a healthy historical context. but perhaps historical context is unnecessary for those of you who are immune to facts.
Posted by Turkana at January 17, 2008 04:45 PMThat's the story as I understand it. Thanks Turk.
Posted by andgarden at January 17, 2008 04:48 PMI don't really get the whole lawsuit. I understand that it makes it easier for workers on the strip to caucus (but really, can they really take off hours from work to go caucus??) but do teachers have a hard time making it to the caucus on a Saturday? If they have some problem, why don't they just ask for extra sites for themselves to make it easier? Being on the side of making it harder to vote--isn't that part of the republican party platform? The teacher's union should not have sued and the Clinton campaign shouldn't have put out a statement that said:
``Make no mistake,'' the statement said, ``the current system that prohibits some shift workers from being able to participate, while allowing others to do so, would seem to benefit other campaigns. More importantly, it is unfair.''
Any statement should have said that they were pleased with the decision because they want all eligible voters to be able to vote easily. If some shift workers have a harder time voting, then set up precincts to make it easier for them. This just makes Clinton look bad.
As for Obama's claims that he can play with the big boys, handle the republicans, whatever, because he's been through Chicago politics: well you can do things a different way and put an end to politics as usual and embrace hope, blah blah blah, or you can take advantage of all the ruthlessness you learned in Chicago. But I don't think you can have it both ways.
Posted by CG at January 17, 2008 04:50 PM60,000 votes just means winning the at large districts, about 6% of the total.
This is by district, not raw vote total.
Posted by Horselover Fat at January 17, 2008 04:56 PMDear Brian,
Where did I suggest an ounce of support for Senator Clinton's campaign? Just because she and I navigate a common cultural landscape doesn't mean I think she has the best plan for moving America forward. What's so hard to understand about that?
Women are going to be treated to the same misogynistic crap whether or not Senator Clinton is a candidate in the presidential primary. What's so hard to understand about that?
cg,
there will be people working at the schools, on saturday, just to keep them open for the caucuses, who will not be allowed to participate unless the schools where they work are also their voting precincts. it's a valid issue, and those workers are being screwed; however, the problems should have been brought up long before, and the timing of the suit was clearly political. it's part of what i don't like about caucuses, in general. i'll have more to say on that, tomorrow.
Posted by Turkana at January 17, 2008 05:30 PMSo Brian, you're saying because Clinton and Obama have decided to call a truce in their battles, we're all supposed to stop talking about feminism altogether? Or about race? Or about why people support their candidate or oppose another?
I noticed you didn't have the guts to go into Christina's thread and tell her outright that her post was about "why polar explorers prove that men are sexist," because you knew you'd be crossing the line of the civility you espouse, yet rarely practice. I noticed and thought "how petty and rude." And I'll bet you didn't even realize that you totally proved Christina's point. Polar explorer, indeed. She's a fookin' scientist, ya idiot.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 17, 2008 05:52 PMTurkana
Thank you for such an informative article.
I knew the Obama followers do not know the whole story - and unfortunately they care little for history to know what happened.
Of course also evident by Obama's Reagan remarks
Posted by sara seatt;e at January 17, 2008 07:13 PMChristina, the misogyny is mostly in your own mind. You're putting the walls up, not knocking them down.
Turkana, my "drivel?" What drivel? My comments on Clinton losing her court case in Nevada? That's drivel? Come on, really, it takes me, a reader, to comment on that, probably the single most important event in the Democratic primary races since New Hampshire? And there's still no post on it by editorial staff here, an allegedly left-wing political blog? WTF? Left Coaster used to be quicker and more astute in its coverage of events. Instead my comments on something you ought to cover is called "drivel." Instead, what's news by today's Left Coaster standards? Polar explorers, and the identity of a woman in a painting that everyone serious has known about for 500 years. That stuff's great and all, but I thought this was supposed to be primarily a political blog, with political commentary, and not just rants against a particular candidate or that candidate's supporters in favor of another.
CG, the reason Clinton looks bad here is because she practiced dirty politics and lost. She went to court to disenfranchise voters. Yes, should something have been done to help the teachers union? Yes. But it was too late and they never asked for the same things the culinary workers asked for and got. Instead, Clinton just tried to disenfranchise the culinary union local. I don't think it aids democracy to try to disenfranchise voters just because another union has small issues getting to the polls. And remember, half the teachers don't work past poll closing time, unlike the culinary workers, which is one of the reasons the culinary workers are caucusing at the casinos. But Clinton didn't like that, because it means she loses if they vote. So, she tried to prevent them from voting. That's what happened here. And a judge wouldn't hear of it, and now the case is dead, tossed out.
Iamcoyote, no I don't expect to quit speaking about race or sex. But the candidates did ask that supporters refrain from discussion of what they'd been talking about. I think talking about why Hillary was right and not racist qualifies as going against the candidates' wishes. Same with the polar explorer bit. Sure, talk about that, but don't do it in comparison to Hillary. That's exactly what her campaign publicly said not to do.
The Left Coaster ought to get back to its leftie roots and away from candidate-specific politics. It just doesn't suit this place.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 17, 2008 10:03 PMHow insane is it that Clinton is smeared as a racist for an innocuous statement and Obama is not only not smeared as a bigot for praising Reagan, but actually celebrated for it by his fans and others. Unbelievable. If any supporter of the Clintons had uttered something like, "I liked Reagan" it would've been blasted as race baiting.
Obama has Jesse Jackson, Jr. launch an ugly racially charged attack against Clinton the day after NH, seeks the endorsement of a homophobic bigot, and had his staff issue that D-Punjab release and....nothing.
I don't want candidates being smeared for what their supporters said (Clinton's Johnson is more than easily countered by Obama's Dyson who suggested Clinton voters in NH were racists, which was not only provocative but baseless), but when Obama continues to be rewarded for engaging in ugly behavior it only encourages it at the expense of our party.
I'm still hoping Edwards pulls of a miracle here. If not, I'll have to hold my nose and vote for Clinton. Obama's just made it too difficult for me to support him in terms of his policies (health care, SS), rhetoric, lobbyist ties, and Chicago political shock tactics.
Posted by Nathan at January 17, 2008 10:25 PMCG,
Here's the rundown: the lawsuit contends that the culinary workers get an unfair advantage because they get to caucus at work. The Clintons should've spoken out against this because it makes them look bad and there was not really a chance that it would've worked anyways.
Posted by Nathan at January 17, 2008 10:32 PMthere will be people working at the schools, on saturday, just to keep them open for the caucuses, who will not be allowed to participate unless the schools where they work are also their voting precincts.
Seems to me this is an issue for every poll worker in every election. I've considered being a poll worker/election judge. You have to be there before polls open and stay until after polls close. Unless you're at your own polling place, how do you vote? I think all democratic candidates should be on the side of making it easier for people to vote.
Posted by CG at January 18, 2008 04:43 AMChristina, the misogyny is mostly in your own mind. You're putting the walls up, not knocking them down.
This is just reprehensible. You're not really progressive are you? You have proven Christina's point yet again by discounting her personal experience, blaming her for the misogyny directed at her by assholes, and trivializing her credentials by continuing to refer to her as a "polar explorer." Not only that, you're trying to dictate what people should write on their own blogs. What a disgusting slimeball.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 18, 2008 05:54 AMcg:
I can speak to that issue since I'm going to be clerking at this local primary and I've done it once before. Ours is a primary, not a "caucus" though which makes it much easier to both clerk and vote. Interestingly, they won't let you file an absentee ballot even though you are not going to be clerking in your own precinct and so there ought not be be any problem with you opening your own ballot to count it.
You must get to the poll by 6:30 and there are no real "shifts" you are essentially on duty with two mandatory one hour breaks for "lunch" (at 10:30?) and "dinner" (at 2:30) and if you are clerking and not just being a warden you end up staying and taking the ballot box to headquarters as late as 9 or ten at night. Its brutal. Last time I was going to use my lunch hour to go to my own precinct and vote but discovered my husband had thrown out his back and was in agony and wound up dealing with that instead of voting. This time I'm going to get my vote in, for sure! but it will mean missing "lunch" or "dinner" no doubt.
There's no way you could "caucus" if you were working as a janitor unless there were enough janitors all from different precincts that you could do shifts, somehow. The caucus thing is absurd, especially after your union has given its backing to one candidate or the other. If the unions are going to give their backing it should be a primary system. If they are not going to give their backing the caucus system makes more sense.
aimai
Posted by aimai at January 18, 2008 06:07 AMIamcoyote, as my mother used to say to me, nice mouth. You eat with that thing? Why don't you cut it out with the name calling and holier-than-thou-outrage bullshit.
I am not discounting Christina's personal experience as a polar scientist/polar explorer. (I've no idea what she's doing, exactly, as she does not say.) What I am discounting are her charges of "degrading, harassing, and violent treatment of women" (Christina's words, not mine) as the norm outside the academy, in the "popular culture."
Sorry, but my personal experience in life has not shown me that "degrading, harassing, and violent treatment of women" is the norm in our society, but it is instead the exception and it is NOT tolerated, "accepted" or "cultivated" (again, Christina's words, not mine). Objective data would back me up on this, as well. Does it go on? Yes. In great numbers that should be brought down? Yes. Does it happen way too often? Yes. For everyone, a majority of women, and men? No, hell, no. For everyone, as a cultural norm? No, again, hell, no. Is it "tolerated?" Absolutely not.
You want to talk about glass ceilings and wage discrepancies? Yeah, those are endemic. "Violent treatment of women?" That's not the norm, it is an aberration that needs to be dealt with.
That is what I am rejecting and discounting, Iamcoyote -- I reject the idea that beating up women is the norm in our society, that beating up women is encouraged, that a majority of women in this country go about getting beaten as a regular occurrence in their lives. For some, it's true. As the norm among the majority of women in our society, it's not true, and any objective measure would back me up on this.
I'm NOT rejecting Christina's personal experience in the academy, or even the popular culture, really. I'm rejecting her extrapolation that because she has had certain experiences in the popular culture that it means most people in the popular culture have had the same experience. That's a load of crap unsupported by any data. And quoting Germaine Greer -- who encourages sexual exploitation of women, has allowed herself to be sexually exploited, and excuses things like female genital mutilation -- does nothing to help Christina's case here.
More important than all that, though, I reject her equating her experiences with Hillary's out on the trail. Hillary said, to her campaign and her supporters, enough with the charges of sexism and racism, drop it! And, yet, here at the Hillary Coaster, we hear all about how Hillary is experiencing sexism on the trail still, and we hear how that relates to women being beaten, and, guess what, Hillary's remarks weren't racist in the least. THAT's what I reject more than anything, the same things Hillary rejected, that she said to stop.
So, don't put words in my mouth, and way to ignore everything else I am saying. I'm a long-time leftie irregular here at Left Coaster, no troll, since well before the last presidential election. Go stuff yourself if you think you have some claim on the "liberal" banner and Obama supporters do not.
I cannot wait for the primaries to be over so one of my favorite blogs returns to sanity from its candidate insanity.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 18, 2008 08:24 AMYeah, whatev, slimeball.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 18, 2008 08:45 AMwait...how could germaine greer have allowed herself to be sexually exploited when sexual exploitation and harrassment is so restricted that brian bell never noticed it? And anyway he dissaproves of it so its not happening? Who died and made Brian Bell the arbiter of other people's experiences? Fuck you, Brian Bell.
aimai
Posted by aimai at January 18, 2008 09:17 AMReally nice language there, iamcoyote and aimai. I love how instead of actually reasoning or talking or debating, you guys just go for the insults. Nice. Tells me a lot about your emotional and intellectual development. Aimai, so I take it you approve of female genital mutilation, then? Cuz that's what Germaine Greer defends.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 18, 2008 11:08 AM