In light of endorsement, Clinton attempts stonewalling

It was reported Saturday in the New York Times that the Nevada Teachers Union was suing the State Democratic Party over locations of the upcoming Caucuses. This was decided last May when HRC was the front-runner. The locations were determined as 'at large' because most of the culinary workers on the strips wouldn't be allowed to leave during their lunch to participate in teh caucus. Although the Teacher's Union hasn't endorsed any specific candidate many of it's high ranking officials have. These 'at large precincts' only became a problem after the influential cullinary union endorsed Obama. Everyone realizes that it is a political move by the teachers. Although some of the teachers have sent a letter to their leaders requesting them to drop the lawsuit saying:

"This lawsuit is all about politics. It’s widely known that many of our union’s top officials support Senator Clinton and now that the Culinary Workers Union has endorsed Senator Obama, they’re using our union to stop Nevadans from caucusing for Senator Obama.

"We never thought our union and Senator Clinton would put politics ahead of what’s right for our students, but that’s exactly what they’re doing. As teachers, and proud Democrats, we hope they will drop this undemocratic lawsuit and help all Nevadans caucus, no matter which candidate they support."

Obama fired back yesterday saying “As soon as you decided, I’m going to support the outsider, I’m going to support the new guy, I’m going to support the guy who is standing with the working people instead of the big shots all of the sudden, they decide they want to change the rules.” Indeed.

Of course there is another perspective. Mr. Obama says it's a matter of civil rights, Mrs. Clinton's supporter say it's just not fair. From Slate.com:

But even if the lawsuit is political, that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. The plaintiffs’ main contention—that voters in at-large precincts will have more influence than other Nevadans—may well be accurate. All Nevada precincts allocate one delegate per 50 registered voters; the at-large precincts would likely allocate more than that, according to the lawsuit.

But still - like those few dissenting teachers said "These at-large locations were approved back in March of 2007, and no one raised any concerns about them for nearly a year," the letter says. "But now, our union is filing a lawsuit making the baseless charge that these at-large caucus locations are discriminatory, when the fact is they were set up to make sure as many Nevadans could caucus as possible."

So who's right? Will the mainly black and hispanic workers get to caucus? Or will it only be the white middle class? (Yeah, it's a jab) A federal judge is to decide later this week.

Of course we in SC haven't paid attention to this because of all the election drama that's going on here, most of it racially motivated because Afro-Americans make up nearly 50% of SC Democrats.. It's become a fire-fight for SC's delegates. Thank God I already voted!!!

:::Speaking of Nevada::: an Update!!!

There was an outburst on MSNBC's Democratic Debate after John Edwards responded to a question about his "siding with Obama" after the New Hampshire debates... I couldn't hear what was said but it sounded rather heated and directed, but I'm not sure at whom.. And in Michigan Romney won - he needed it - and so did HRC although interestingly enough 40% of the Democratic voters voted Uncommitted in defiance of HRC.

Sphere: Related Content