Hillary the Insurgent

Look because of Clinton/Monicas case that is why Al Gole lost. Clinton is really think of him not any Democrats. Listen folks, be wise with your votes. Look for someone new not the Clintons.

Democrats for life!

wow mabey there is some hope in our country....these are the kind of comments i like to see. i agree i have lost a respect for the clintons because they do play dirty, dirty politics and i don't like it at all. all its doing is spitting our democratic party.and i am not saying that i do not like them b/c i do like them but i don't think it is the AMERICAN way to win. i donno i just think that obama will bring us all together, to really work with one another. not seperate us. we do need some new blood in the white house and and i think that he is going to bring us alot of good. i Just pray that people will really think hard about who they want for president and not be single minded but to open there mind and thoughts to every candidate and really listen to what they ALL have to say this is the most important election we have ever had! ITS IN OUR HANDS

Why does everybody assume Bill wants Hillary to win.At present he can come and go as he pleases which is not the case if he goes back to the WH,although she has Huma to fill his role.Part of her appeal(83%)is Bill and he is doing his best to lose appeal.
Way to much emotion in this primary.Mother nature is already starting to destroy this country because even with the environmental Democrats leading Congress nothing is being done because both parties are concerned with re-election.That must be why they are called parties because each side has one at our expense.

What i see is this. If Clinton got the nomination Dennis kusinich would have brought the lawsuit, to keep Obama in the clear of having nothing to do with it.

the point is, a SHOW OF HANDS CAUCUS is a lot easier to rigg than a primary which is a private vote.

You got a whole pile of workers running off on their lunch hour in the casino where the UNION operates, to RAISE YOU HAND in front of your boss , and so you HAVE to vote for Obama.

On top of this, the delegate award would be outrageous for that concentrated of a vote it justs hands the state caucus over to obama.

Its ridiculous if you ask me. This 'show of hands' thing is too easy to rig by peer pressure.

We would ALL love to have the caucus set up at OUR UNION with a show of hands by our employees.

Its so far beyond unfair that they should either send them back to their voting stations where they are SUPPOSED to go, or make it a PRIVATE VOTE.

BUSH DID IT FOR 2 TERMS SO THE CLINTONS ARE TRYING IT TOO

You know, some of us look up stuff and then comment on the issue. I was reading an article by Paul Kane of the Washington Post, and here is an exert. "The suit was widely expected by state party officials as well as Obama's campaign and the powerful Culinary Workers Union 226, which earlier this week endorsed the Illinois senator in advance of the Jan. 19 Nevada caucus. That endorsement had been eagerly sought by Obama as well as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.), and by yesterday afternoon culinary union leaders told the Washington Post they expected an outside group with ties to Clinton to file a motion seeking to quash the casino caucuses.
The Nevada State Education Association, some of whose top leaders have individually endorsed Clinton, filed the suit and is using a law firm with close ties to the onetime front-runner, Kummer, Kaempfer, Bonner, Renshaw, and Ferrario. Former congressmen James H. Bilbray (D-Nev.), a lawyer at that firm, has endorsed Clinton and is stumping for her in the Silver State.
"The Democratic Party of Nevada has violated the principle of 'one person, one vote' by creating at-large precincts for certain caucus participants, based solely on the employment of such participants," the suit alleges". Looks like duplicity to me. If Hillary would have gotten that endorsement, the Clinton Camp would have said nothing. But since the Obama Camp got the endorsement, the Clinton's act like they don't have any ties to the Nevada State Education Association, or the law firm handling the lawsuit. Did Bill Clinton run his campaign like this when he was running for President? The Clinton Camp must be eating too much ice cream too fast. A 'Brain Freeze' has just occurred.

I always admired Bill Clinton for what he did for the country. But lately he has lost my respect. He has been unstatemanlike. Some hardcore Democrats who vote democrat in the general election may choice for the first time to not vote at all, or may even vote republician. This strategy by the Clintons to win at any cost, may ultimately cause the Democratic party to lose as a whole.

It's funny how Hillary bashed the Iowa caucus, saying that people who work at night were deprived of the chance to participate. Now she and Bill are singing a different tune, and had she won the Culinary Workers endorsement, you can bet his lawsuit wouldn't have materialized.

The bottom line is the Clintons will do anything to win. I no longer have a shred of respect for either of them. They represent the worst of American politics, and that's coming from somebody who was an avid supporter of Bill Clinton.

No longer. Their behavior is despicable. This is now America is all about.

As a Democratic ex-president, Clinton's future role would normally have been that of advisor to the next Democratic president.

As long as he kept things positive, one could not fault him for attempting to sell his wife as a candidate.

Unfortunately, his red-faced, win-at-all-costs attacks on Obama of late have gone way beyond simply negative and are starting to get more than a little unseemly. As a result, any chance that any future Dem president (other than Hillary, of course) would avail themselves of his experience and counsel have been extinguished -- by Bill himself. And it's not just the bad feelings and burnt bridges fostered by his personal attacks that have submarined his future role as elder statesman, but also the nearly unhinged nature of the attacks themselves. Tone matters, and Bill's tone is increasingly hysterical.

On top of all that, the Clintons 11th hour attempt to change the rules that they had previously rigged in their own favor only after they turned around to bite them in the ass is -- well it's despicable really, but, at this point, not really surprising at all. We've seen 'em do it a bunch of times in this campaign, and have become educated consumers of their nonsense, to the point where we almost expect it of them.

You see, while the Clintons were and are world-class political manipulators, the people that followed them into office have taken their schtick to a whole new level over the past seven years; as a result, the Clintons' parlour tricks just aren't that impressive anymore. It's kind of like watching the original Star Wars today -- it was mind boggling at the time, but just doesn't have the same impact today.

And while they're obviously very bright, they just can't seem to get that we've really had enough of them, thank you very much, and just aren't interested in doing that dance, or watching the next/last three episodes of star wars for the next four or eight years. At least not in the theatre. On DVD, maybe.

Voting is something very private. It is something between a person and his/her God and should be kept that way. Caucus takes privacy away, it is stupid to say the least. It should be banned.

This is sad, they really should have had a primary and all of this could have been avoided. This caucus also leaves out the Jewish and Seventh Day Adventist voters who are unable to vote for religious reasons. Everyone should only be given one vote and the unions shouldn't be forcing it's members to vote for Obama is they don't want to. This is really sad.

Is it me, or does Bill no longer sound rational anymore? Watching the video of him answering this question was actually a bit disturbing, as if he's on something.

From the State's Response Brief to the TRO:

Plaintiffs' John/Jane Voter hypothetical is absurd because it "assumes relatively low turnout at John's at-large caucus (only 261 voters, even though the caucus site employs at least 4,000 people) and simultaneously unheard-of 100% turnout at Jane's precinct caucus (261 voters out of 261 registered Democratic voters). Given that bizarre premise, the conclusion of Plaintiffs' fable hardly comes as a surprise." Finally, NDSP points out that, in reality, "as the turnout in the at-large caucus increases, the number of delegates per voter declines dramatically." Interestingly, the NDSP estimates that each of the nine at-large caucuses will attract, on average, "somewhere between 400 and 1,200 voters and, under the formula just described, will elect between 50 and 80 delegates" at each location. In other words, "betwen 3,600 and 10,800 voters will elect somewhere between 450 and 720 delegates" when all 9 at-large sites are totalled. By comparison, in the rest of Clark County, "a reasonable estimate is that somewhere between 40,000 and 60,000 voters will elect 7,224 delegates." This 40,000 - 60,000 turnout estimate is based on extrapolating the turnout from the Iowa Caucus. Under this scenario, "the ratio of voters to delegates would be between 8.0-to-1 and 15.0-to-1 in the at-large caucuses and between 5.5-to-1 and 8.3-to-1 in the precinctc caucuses elsewhere in Clark County. That is hardly a disturbing disparty. If anything, the Party's delegate allocation system for Clark County somwhat disfavors the voters who participate in at-large caucuses - directly contrary to Plaintiffs' unfounded, and utterly unrealistic, speculation."

I would not want to vote with all the people who belong to a Union that supports a certain candidate. If I support another candidate, no way would I feel safe in that caucus. You are surrounded by union members of a Union who made a decision for you already. So much for the "Right to Vote." The whole caucus thing is social pressure. We feel we have a right not to share who we vote for, yet here are these people having to. at work no less, with the Union. Sounds completely wrong and UN-American.

Funny how no one thinks it's a trick to round up all the Union members to vote where they can be watched by other union members. You're defending your forced Obama votes. No one is naive enough to believe anything other than that fact.

If you wanted to vote for Hillary (which a lot of people do -- I hear from them daily) but were bullied constantly, even while you were on a lunch break. Would you caucus for Hillary anyway? Or would you just not show up to caucus at all?

If we're talking about a job, why would anyone risk that job and caucus for Hillary in the face of having a boss TELL them to caucus for Obama? It's ridiculous.

Also, if those Hillary supporters decide to skip it all in order to keep their job or at least keep their respect, then the election will be rigged b/c the casinos get 10% extra delegates.

If you only have 400 show up at every special precinct, that’s 9×80 delegates = 720 additional. Since Clark County contributes somewhere around 7k, the casino precincts are the extra 10% everyone refers to.

Something's wrong here with this. Why won't anyone do something? Oh yeah, I forgot: the teachers have and the Clintons have. Thank god!

ALL states should have a BINDING primary election ON THE SAME DATE. The convention circuses could then be done away with. It's that simple.

These people are unbelievable. I like her position on many issues, she would do a far better job that our current president. But for the life of me, I cannot vote for her. The kind of stuff they pulled in the past and what they are trying to pull right now will just divide the country and nothing will go forward. It will be a good fight. If anyone thinks the other side will work with her,....THINK AGAIN. Not a chance.

Bill, passion is taking over, nobody is buying your explanations, nobody is crazy to accept that 1vote=5 votes, please cool it down. Yes we know that you love Hillay, but the forcing will not pay off. Credibility is very important, the world is watching.

The Clintons had their time in the White House. It is ungracious of Bill to be out in front all of the time rooting for his wife. I think this is nepotism, and it is ruining her campaign in my opinion. If they wanted everyone to have a voting place, then they should have made alot more polling places earlier on, not take away the ones that were put in place fair and square. It's more Clintonesque sour grapes, and as usual, they are not thinking about others, but they are only thinking of themselves.