Since her loss in Iowa, Senator Hillary Clinton has been an outspoken critic of the caucus system, saying that the limited time allotted for voting disenfranchises too many workers who are on the job during those hours.

It seems in Nevada Clinton has had a change of heart.

Last week the powerful, 60,000 member Culinary Workers Union Local 226 chose to endorse Senator Barack Obama after "fierce lobbying" from the three frontrunners. Two days later, the Nevada State Education Association – with ties to the Clinton campaign in its leadership – filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to shutdown nine casino caucus at-large sites created to allow both union and non-union shift workers to vote during the workday. (On any given day, it would be difficult for these workers to participate without these caucus sites. It will be even more difficult during the busy Martin Luther King, Jr. weekend.) According to the Washington Post, the system was created last March with input from the presidential campaigns and – as meeting minutes reveal – "several of the parties to the suit were there and approved of the process."

Karen Finney, Director of Communications at the Democratic National Committee, said to me, "The state party submitted their delegate selection plan last May and it was available for public comment…. They also had a thorough review process in the state and informed the campaigns months ago about their plans. A key goal is to ensure the broadest participation by eligible voters. The state party has worked hard to increase the number of caucus locations throughout the state, there are some 520 public locations statewide, and there are more caucus locations than there were polling locations in 2006. The at-large [casino] precincts are 9 percent of those locations [and] are open to all shift- workers within a 2.5 mile radius."

This is the first time in the 2008 presidential race that the Latino vote will play a significant role in an electoral outcome, and nearly 40 percent of the Culinary union's membership is Latino. Estimates put the votes at the casino sites at more than 10 percent of the statewide total. According to the Los Angeles Times, at a union rally Obama spoke out against the lawsuit which would "disenfranchise the hard-working folks on the Strip.... You don't win an election . . . by trying to keep people out. You're supposed to try to bring them in." He also said of the lawsuit's timing, "Ever since I got the support of Local 226, the lawyers decided to get involved. The rules were OK when the other campaigns thought they would win the Culinary endorsement."

Rob Richie, Executive Director of FairVote, agreed that the timing and impact of the lawsuit are problematic. He told me, "The time to discuss the fairness of caucus sites is long past – you simply don't want to reduce the number of places to vote or do a last-minute change if you want people to participate. Caucus turnout already promises to be distressingly low for representative outcomes."

Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin, a constitutional law professor who does voting rights cases (he's also chair of Montgomery County for Obama and running to serve as a Delegate), told me that the case is without merit: "The Equal Protection claim in this case is silly and would be thrown out even if it hadn't been raised in the eleventh hour in a transparently political way. The claim boils down to the argument that it discriminates against teachers and other professionals to set up polling places in casinos for people who work there since these employees then get an unfair advantage in access to the polls. On this curious theory, of course, it would violate Equal Protection for some people to live two miles away from a polling place while others live on the same block. The irony is that most polling places are in public schools [where Nevada State Education Association members work]! Setting up polling stations in workplaces where there are tens of thousands of voters who would otherwise be unlikely to vote is perfectly rational. It's also a public policy that progressives should celebrate and duplicate, not try to thwart."

D. Taylor, secretary-treasurer of Culinary Local 226, also felt that the Democratic Party should speak out strongly to defend the caucus sites. As he said to the New York Times, "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. I am sure every single elected official in Nevada will renounce it, and so will the Clinton campaign."

But no such luck.

Asked about the lawsuit on Meet The Press Clinton said, "The courts and the state party will have to work it out."

"Not for us to decide," Rory Reid, Clinton's Nevada state chairman, told the Las Vegas Sun. "We just want the process to be fair."

And Clinton campaign spokesman, Phil Singer, said in a statement to the Times: "We hope the courts and the state party resolve this matter. We will respect their decision and focus our efforts on running a strong campaign."

Until this moment, part of "running a strong campaign" included speaking out on behalf of workers who were unable to make their voices heard at the polls. But now, as a lawsuit threatens to disenfranchise thousands of workers who will be unable to get away from their jobs to vote in their home districts, Clinton and her campaign remain conspicuously silent. This is especially disappointing because the Senator has been a proponent of comprehensive electoral reform in the past, cosponsoring good legislation that would improve voter protections and access, and make Election Day a holiday – all presumably to make more voices heard in our electoral process.

But now it seems Clinton only wants those voices to be heard if they will help her win. A campaign and its candidate who once took pride in the ability to "stay on message" has delivered a message to Nevadans that is loud and clear: winning is more important to them than our shared democratic values.

Comments (47)

1. The Clinton machine in action, suppressing the vote, shock, shock. It will be interesting indeed to see the results of the NH recount Kucinich has demanded. If these are available in time & alter the startling NH numbers, Nevadans may have a surprise for the Clinton machine. So far official results on the New Hampshire Secretary of State web site indicate a remarkable relationship between Obama and Clinton votes, when you look at votes tabulated by op-scan v. votes tabulated by hand:

   Clinton Optical scan 91,717 52.95% Obama Optical scan 81,495 47.05%

   Clinton Hand-counted 20,889 47.05% Obama Hand-counted 23,509 52.95%

   The percentages appear to have been swapped. Highly unusual, to say the least.

   Posted by Lit at 01/14/2008 @ 12:56pm

2. Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/14/2008 @ 1:01pm

   i searched in vain (to beat mask to the punch) for frankgrits' quote on hillary.

   oh well, i'll paraphrase:

   HILLARY MUST WIN AT WHATEVER COST!

   Posted by FRANKGRITSISH @ sometime in the past

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2008 @ 1:06pm

3. Hey there Frosty!

   Wanted you to know that you've got a badass [ezralevant.com] up there in Canada.

   Back on topic, I believe Frankgrit's post was "whatever it takes to win" which is, apparently, the strategy for the HRC machine.

   Posted by FritztheCat at 01/14/2008 @ 1:16pm

4. Posted by FRITZTHECAT 01/14/2008 @ 1:16pm

   well, thanks for the news :+(

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2008 @ 1:22pm

5. This is entirely consistent with Hillary's vote in 2002 AGAINST the Help America Vote Act.

   http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=V3207

   Hillary only wants votes to count if they help her; if they don't, she looks the other way and her advocacy for voting rights changes its tune.

   This Nevada situation is more of the same. If Hillary had gotten the union endorsement instead of Barack, she would NOT be silent and would be up in arms over the prospect of these voters not being able to get off work and vote.

   Hillary the hypocrite - what more can I say?

   Posted by Metteyya at 01/14/2008 @ 1:26pm

6. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/14/2008 @ 1:06pm

   Or...more specifically, it was---

   CRITICIZE HILLARY: YOU'RE SEXIST!----Posted by Ari Berman at 11/02/2007 @ 11:53am

   "Hey, it's working. The idea is to get elected."----Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/02/2007 @ 12:20pm

   Posted by Mask at 01/14/2008 @ 1:43pm

7. Posted by MASK 01/14/2008 @ 2:04pm

   but I won't be swayed by the dark side.

   LOL.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2008 @ 2:20pm

8. I'm absolutely disgusted with the Clintons and their "win at all cost" attitude toward personal ambition and power. They will say anything and do anything to get ahead. This is just one horrible example among many.

   If for no other reason THIS is why I'm interested in knowing the results of the NH recount. I have no idea if it was rigged or not, but what I do know is that the Clintons will do anything to get ahead, and NH was crucial to keeping them in the game. How far would they go to win? Would they subvert democracy to win? Obvious in Nevada they want to. Would they go as far as to rig an election in NH? I put NOTHING past them now, just as I put nothing past the GOP. They are cut from the same cloth.

   Posted by bridoc at 01/14/2008 @ 2:35pm

9. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/14/2008 @ 2:20pm

   Ooooh, they ALL say that....at first!

   Posted by Mask at 01/14/2008 @ 3:09pm

10. David Corn feels pity for HRC.....

    Hillary Gets a Bad Deal in Vegas--and Is Right To Complain

    By David Corn | January 14, 2008 1:46 PM

    I've been tough on Hillary Clinton lately....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....

    In Nevada, Clinton is at a disadvantage because the major Democratic political player with street muscle--the Culinary Workers Union--endorsed Obama last week......

    .....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..

    You can't blame the Obama campaign....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...

    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.

    Posted by Happy at 01/14/2008 @ 4:07pm

11. Posted by HAPPY 01/14/2008 @ 4:07pm

    I think David Corn is missing the point.

    It is NOT whether we should have caucuses, the question is that since we have them are we going to support efforts to make it easier for people to vote or are we going to go silent on this issue because we think these voters will vote against us?

    That is the question for the Clinton camp, and so far, it appears we are getting the silent treatment.

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/14/2008 @ 5:50pm

12. He seriously missed the argument. Sure you can argue that caucuses are a bad way of going about elections all you want BUT this argument isn't about the caucus process. It is about how Clintons people are calling for the loss in the ability of a large portion of voters (who will not be supporting her) to vote. She says the caucus process disenfranchises voters... well so does taking away their ability to vote.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/14/2008 @ 6:28pm

13. KVH Posted 01/14/2008 @ 12:33pm – in part:

    …Clinton has been an outspoken critic of the caucus system, saying that the limited time allotted for voting disenfranchises too many workers…in Nevada Clinton has had a change of heart.

    "I'm shocked, shocked to find there is gambling going on in here."

    If the outcome is going her way and/or a change would benefit her opponent, why would she say anything? She has some high moral standards of fairness? You think she gives a rat's posterior about anyone who is not going to follow her in Lemming like fashion

    Posted by Econ Major at 01/14/2008 @ 8:55pm

14. HAPPY Loses on This Gamble.....

    Just finished filling out a form to stake my claim to a part of the $7 Billion+ Enron settlement. I speculated w/$5k worth of Enron stocks AFTER cracks started to appear in fall `01...sold them mid-`06 for $80!

    Who knows, I may get a few hundreds back later this year! Alas, High-Risk often leads to High-Loss :~)

    Posted by Happy at 01/15/2008 @ 12:31am

15. Interesting...FRANKGRITS and HELENDAO were no shows on THIS thread!?!??!

    No talking points from the HRC Campaign?

    Posted by Mask at 01/15/2008 @ 09:17am

16. Ok,yall miss the most important point... free elections. Why not just hold the causcus at the union hall! It is unfair to the workers who will be unduly influence by the public nature of a caucaus and being in their place of work under union's or managements heavy eye. It would be different if it were a private election.

    Posted by rvormwal at 01/15/2008 @ 6:57pm

17. Allowing casino workers to vote at their places of employment allows them an unfair advantage over other workers. Caucuses are inherently unrepresentative. The Clinton campaign is right to oppose them.

    Posted by DRShumway at 01/15/2008 @ 7:33pm

18. I wouldn't say that this last-minute action by the teachers' union stinks to high heaven but my nose is twitching over something and I only hope Hillary uses her own voice to clear the air for us all and does so NOW.

    Posted by dickmarshall at 01/15/2008 @ 8:13pm

19. Who knows, I may get a few hundreds back later this year! Alas, High-Risk often leads to High-Loss :~)

    Posted by HAPPY 01/15/2008 @ 12:31am | ignore this person

    good luck, with the economy and the market tanking.

    Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 8:32pm

20. There was a blog here in late October to the effect that Obama wasn't showing enough independence or fire or chutzpah or whatever other spiritual qualaities the blogger wanted in a President. And I remember posting, well, I thought his blocking the Von Spakovsky nomination to the FEC was a sign of gutsiness, or chutzpah or whatever it was that was on demand that day. The next blog I remember seeing about Obama was some loony tunes piece by Laura Flanders to the effect that Obama didn't care about black men in Illinois, because if he did he'd distance himself from some Chicago Daley or other who had done something bad criminal justice-wise involving black men. So much for pointing out that Obama cares about voting rights -- he actually hates black men! But I see I took the wrong angle -- should have said that HRC, and not the systematic GOP machine, is tyring to block voting rights. I need a Washington Times style manual.

    Posted by RLawrence at 01/15/2008 @ 9:38pm

21. Yep, it's true, Hillary doesn't care how she wins, as long as she does. Watch closely when the New Hampshire primary votes are recounted, which they will be. Dennis Kucinich has not only requested that they be recounted, he's already paid his $2000 to make it happen. Hand-counted votes favored Obama, just as the polls had predicted. Machine-counted votes favored Hillary, enough so that she "won" the primary. The type of voting machines used in the N.H. primary have had "problems" in the past; they have been tampered with. Put two and two together, folks. Clinton operatives tampered with the machines and stole the New Hampshire primary. Watch this story unfold when votes are recounted. I just hope this happens soon.

    Posted by WinnieM at 01/15/2008 @ 11:39pm

22. It is my understanding that caucus sites will not be set up for teachers or any other group just the union that represents a certain worker. Who is disenfranchising the teachers? It this fair to just make the caucus available to one set of union members? I don't think so.

    Posted by hettiemae45 at 01/16/2008 @ 12:00am

23. The Clinton campaign seems awfully Rovian these days.

    Posted by be peace at 01/16/2008 @ 12:22am

24. By the time you've passed a certain age, each election cycle makes you feel like you're trapped in a rerun, with the same issues, same complaints about our broken elections system. The system hasn't been fixed because it benefits those in power. Following each election, the outraged declare that "We aren't going to stand for this!" And nothing changes. Interest groups raise millions of dollars of donations with a promise to actually DO SOMETHING to legitimize our elections. We despair, then adjust, vowing this will never happen again.

    Those are the facts. Now, we need to figure out what to do about it beyond sending in the occasional donation, hoping that SOMEONE will do SOMETHING.

    Posted by fabian955 at 01/16/2008 @ 08:16am

25. The Clintons have never had any respect for the working middle class. Every time Bill's poll numbers went down he blamed the working middle class. Opening up additional caucus voting locations in the Casinos only makes sense, and the Clintons obviously thought so when they thought they would win the endorsement of the Culinary Union. Since they did not win that endorsement now it isn't fair and being who they are they filed a lawsuit to keep the vast middle working class conspiracy from possibly voting against a Clinton. Apparently, neither Clinton has any shame. But then, there only concern is in what they want and feel entitled too.

    And all this talk of their vast history of fighting for civil rights should really be looked into more closely. When Lyndon Johnson ran for president Hillary Clinton was working in the Barry Goldwater campaign and Goldwater was most definately not in favor of civil rights. And while brave students from working middle class homes from all across the USA were marching and being beaten and killed signing up voters in the South where were Bill and Hillary? It was really disturbing to see the reenactment of the civil rights march with Bill and Hillary in the front ranks alongside people who were actually there in those grim days fighting for civil rights. The fictionalization of both of the Clinton's records and history only distorts their true nature and agenda.

    Posted by rgorhamjd at 01/16/2008 @ 08:41am

26. Well, I don't know that I understand the situation enough to say if it's "fair" or not, (as a registered "independent" I'm not allowed to!*) but it does seem fishy to be complaining at this late date. * And yes, I am being sarcastic.

    Posted by Tht1Gy! at 01/16/2008 @ 08:54am

27. Posted by RGORHAMJD 01/16/2008 @ 08:41am

    Well said.

    How anyone can support, let alone respect, a candidate who holds the intelligence of the electorate in such low esteem?

    Posted by Econ Major at 01/16/2008 @ 09:02am

28. Every time Bill's poll numbers went down he blamed the working middle class.----Posted by RGORHAMJD 01/16/2008 @ 08:41am

    Curious....can you give us a QUOTE or two of Bill Clinton saying that?

    Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 09:34am

29. DNC ballot rigging is SUCH a shock, isn't it Katrina? But so what? What are you going to do about it? Vote Republican?

    Enjoy 4 more years of your Iraq Bloodbath, Kat. You voted for it.

    Posted by AlanSmithee at 01/16/2008 @ 10:52am

30. Seen from a British perspective, and our system, at least for national and local elections in England (things are fairer in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in this respect) is no better. Every primary season and US election seems to be a wrangle either to get voters to the polls by candidates who think this will help them win, or often enough to try and hinder them where they think this will help their opponents. Obama may well cry foul, and it seems he is right about Nevada, bur watch him too to see if he tries the same elsewhere - in other words trust none of them.

    Remember Florida 2000!

    Posted by prsjehu at 01/16/2008 @ 11:33am

31. Posted by HETTIEMAE45 01/16/2008 @ 12:00am

    The time to bring up a "fairness argument" was a year ago when public comment was sought.

    If we only care about fairness at the last minute, when there is no time to change anything, then this really is not about fairness but electioneering by the Clintons to disenfranchise voters that she believes will vote against her.

    What would really be refreshing is if Hillary simply tries to appeal to these voters that she is the best candidate, despite the union endorsement.

    Instead, she has no confidence in her appeal as a candidate and therefore plays "last minute disenfranchisement games" to try to win in whatever way she can.

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/16/2008 @ 2:05pm

32. Is anybody REALLY surprised by this??? It's the other side of the same coin-BUSH-CLINTON-BUSH-CLINTON. And the beat goes on.

    Posted by freedomjunkie at 01/16/2008 @ 2:12pm

33. In a perfect BUSH/CLINTON world it would be Hillary for two terms then Jeb for two terms then Chelsea for two terms.

    Posted by freedomjunkie at 01/16/2008 @ 2:14pm

34. Katrina, as usual, you deserve better commentary. This is serious food for thought, but after years of MSM training, a lot of us seem to've learned to salivate only for fatty tidbits. Anyway, K vdH, keep it up.

    Posted by annberry0 at 01/16/2008 @ 5:02pm

35. As an elected state official, I confess my ignorance. I had no idea until this season of caucuses that the entire election process in this country is pandering to the media hype.

    What is Hillary Clinton or any other candidate to do but bow to the pressures. They all know the process is the fartherest thing from democratic, but have no control over it.

    Then writers aid and abet the corrupted system by offering modifications of a plan designed to screw the American public. How unfortunate that almost all of you have fallen for the scheme to disenfranchise Americans.

    As a citizen from a state where a governor was running for president, I truly became aware that he did not stand a chance against big business that controls both parties.

    Jimmy Carter stated that he was probably the last candidate that could run on a very limited budget. Regardless of what the pundits say, my husband and I were better off financially during the Carter years than in any before or since. Carter should have been the Man of the Year many times, especially over his mid-east accomplishments and his humanitarian endeavors, but he doesn't stand a chance because he is relegated to the ranks of a know-nothing president.

    Posted by cappy121230 at 01/16/2008 @ 8:47pm

36. Posted by slc987 at 01/16/2008 @ 9:13pm

37. DMC has filed to be a defendant on the side of the Culinary Union. Check out Marc Ambinder's blog at the Atlantic Monthly. I have tried to put the link, but it appears to be too long.

    Posted by slc987 at 01/16/2008 @ 9:16pm

38. Posted by SLC987 01/16/2008 @ 9:16pm

    go to "tinyurl.com" and follow instructions for link shrinkage.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/16/2008 @ 9:28pm

39. It is my understanding that caucus sites will not be set up for teachers or any other group just the union that represents a certain worker. Who is disenfranchising the teachers? It this fair to just make the caucus available to one set of union members? I don't think so.

    Posted by HETTIEMAE45

    Hettiemae, The caucus is on the Saturday of the MLK weekend. Who is going to be working for the two hour caucus period? The casino workers or the teachers? Common sense says the teachers aren't going to be working on Saturday. This is nothing more than a last minute attempt to exclude voters from participating. No matter what legal issue is being brought forward the time to do it was months ago (long before Obama won the endorcement of the culinary union). If the caucus sites are changed at this point many will lose their ability to participate. It's Florida all over, but now it's a Democrat involved. This is so sad.

    Posted by loria at 01/17/2008 @ 09:32am

40. Ahhh...soon the student will become the master, and FZ will take over as Jedi Archivist!

    heheh

    Posted by MASK 01/14/2008 @ 2:04pm | ignore this person

    but I won't be swayed by the dark side.

    LOL.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/14/2008 @ 2:20pm | ignore this person

    Ooooh, they ALL say that....at first!

    Posted by MASK 01/14/2008 @ 3:09pm | ignore this person

    I hate to type it, but LOL!!!!! You guys should take this act on the road.

    Posted by cka2nd at 01/17/2008 @ 10:07am

41. Posted by CKA2ND 01/17/2008 @ 10:07am |

    Can't....I drive a big gas-guzzling SUV, and FZ wouldn't DARE ride in one of those.

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 01/17/2008 @ 10:21am

42. Can't....I drive a big gas-guzzling SUV, and FZ wouldn't DARE ride in one of those.

    heheh

    Posted by MASK 01/17/2008 @ 10:21am

    you do not!?

    BTW you still haven't answered this:

    yeah, 50% in ontario.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/16/2008 @ 9:45pm

    So that makes it pretty EASY for a lot of Canucks to bitch about US (U.S.) "cutting back", when they keep the juice pumping from splitting them atoms, huh?

    Posted by MASK 01/16/2008 @ 10:32pm | ignore this person

    Posted by MASK 01/16/2008 @ 10:32pm

    well, gas and oil would be a lot cheaper if we just kept it for ourselves.

    we use about 150 - 300 kilowatt hours of electricity per person each month in our home.

    go grab your electricity bill and tell me what your usage is.

    and BTW, a new natural gas generating station has been constructed here (real close) -- in order to sell electricity to the u.s.!

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/16/2008 @ 10:39pm | ignore this person

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/17/2008 @ 10:51am

43. The very lengthy election process make it dependent on money and favors and increases the chances for unequal opportunity for the different candidates. However, baring the participation of voters is not the way to correct the election process. In addition, why should elected officials be allowed to spend a large part of their mandate away from their work to get theme self reelected?

    Posted by abdosoliman at 01/17/2008 @ 10:58am

44. I live in Las Vegas, and always held that should Clinton best Obama, my candidate of choice, and become the Democratic nominee, I would fall in line and work hard to ensure that she wins in November.

    But after so many dispicable tactics by Clinton and her supporters and after the lawsuit by Clinton supporters that seeks to disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters in my home state, I cannot in good conscience support her.

    Based on what I've seen so far, with the most telling aspect of Clinton's nature being the willigness to subvert democracy in the pursuit of power, I've come to realize that a Clinton presidency carries the same dangerous elements of the Bush Administration, but with the added threat of competence and intelligence.

    After eight years of a Bush administration tethered to corporate interests, we teeter on the brink of a democratic collapse into full blown facism. The slightest attack on our fragile democratic processes might crumble its already weakened foundations. In the past few years we have seen the erosion of the Consitution, a monumental transfer on wealth out of the middle class, rampant lies and misinformation, voter suppression in previously unseen scales, the breaking of our military, intolerance for dissent, and most worrisome, the rise of powerful, unnaccountable, private mercenary armies.

    This latest Clinton power grab is alarming and should not be allowed to pass without serious scrutiny and criticism. The MSM has been laregely silent on this issue, opting instead to focus on a fabricated tale of racial tension.

    Those of you who love democracy yet support Hillary should do some serious soul searching. Ask yourselves if voter suppression is an acceptable political tactict.

    We should not replace the Bush administration with a more powerful and more competent version of the same evil.

    Obama may well be the last and only lifeboat to save us from this sinking Titanic. The urgency for a change of course is indeed fierce. The time to elect Obama is now.

    Posted by stoplying at 01/17/2008 @ 12:37pm

45. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/17/2008 @ 10:51am

    Sorry, FZ....didn't you know you guys are part of OUR colonial empire now?

    Posted by Mask at 01/17/2008 @ 4:10pm

46. And Mr. Democracy today is singing praises to Ronald Reagan and his sunny personality and his transformational period in America.

    And to the Review Journal, the right wing union busting paper that loves Bush/Cheney that endorsed Obama along with Reno right wing rag. Obama is gearing up to take republicans in California, and throws Democrats under the bus.

    Posted by morris1030 at 01/18/2008 @ 12:52am

47. Makes you ill, doesn't it? Apparently the Demos are just as corrupt as the Repugs. My choices: (1) Mike Gravel (2, later on as MG wont get the nomination) Ron Paul, as an independant. That's all folks!

    Posted by jcforpennys at 01/18/2008 @ 10:40pm