UNITE HERE Divides

The union is only mad because of the lawsuit filed. But come on do you really think it is fair for the Union Members to have to go to vote and have their union boss standing right in front of them? They will vote for Obama because they will be afraid to lose their jobs and who can blame them. Your vote should not be a public matter. The Ad by the Union is wrong and just another way of race into the race. Obama should have denouce the ad if he wanted to be a uniter. That is true leadership and he has none.

The point is that the union chose to support Obama without consulting with their members. I have yet to see any reporting on how the members feel about this. I think its because many of them have said that they support Hillary Clinton.In the causus on the strip, the people who will be in charge of the caucus are union leaders. Because this is not a private vote, the union leaders will know how there membership voted. This should be construed as voter intimidation, but again, I see no reporting on this aspect. Of course, Barack Obama has gone on record to say that he knows how to play rough politics. He is from Chicago, and he has stepped on a lot of people to get ahead. Just ask Alice Palmer. Yes, Saint Obama is a slick politician.

Just as it was rare until quite recently to find Hillary (and Barack for that matter) on a picket line or in a union hall, it is very difficult to sort out Clinton’s real feelings about union’s place in the nation’s economy today.

Not so John Edwards. Here’s Edwards’ bottom line position on labor and unions:

*Edwards also supports banning the permanent replacement of strikers so unions can negotiate fairly.”

Ask Clinton and Obama about this point and be prepared for a waltz around the Big Table they both like to hide beneath. Here’s a portion of Clinton’s thinking straight out of her “Labor” plank.

“I also pushed to include provisions to create more opportunities for entrepreneurs. In New York we have a tremendous amount of skilled individuals who could start businesses and create jobs if given the technical assistance and capital.”

Yeah, that really sounds like pound the bricks support for a strong labor movement in this country.

Anyone who thinks she or he is voting pro-union this election season, should not forget John Edwards’ roots. They go deep into working class soil–working class origins, factory worker father, public school education, lawyering for the weak against the powerful, long demonstrated personal public support for unions. No other candidate can match this background and record.

When John Edwards runs against the corporate Republican candidate and Karl Rove puts out what he hopes will be an effective “class war” smear, he will not be far off.

But it won’t be “war,” only class justice and balance that Edwards will be fighting for. Something we haven’t had in this country for nearly forty years.

ALL UNIONS MEMBERS SHOULD BE TREATED EQUALLY. ALL SHOULD BE ABLE TO CAUCUS AT THEIR PLACE OF WORK.
IS THAT SO?
OR, ONLY THE UNIONS THAT SUPPORT OBAMA?
PLEASE, EXPLAIN, I AM CONFUSED!

Both Bill & Hillary Clinton have no class. If they had come out in support of having those casino caucus, people would have respected them; even, the union members would have voted for them; instead, they displayed their arrogance. My friends, the monarchy has ended. Once again, the United States has regained her independence and we are now a democracy. No more Bush/Clinton inheritance. We are a democracy!

Spock if your not from Connecticut then don't call all of us liberals, they (a lot of conservative democrats in this state) and that we run corrupt government.

Just an FYI 95% of the corrupt politicians (that got caught and were jailed) were republicans. So go ahead and vote Thompson. If anything we have learned in CT is that if you want to be mislead and have governor bid out all projects to his friends. Then go right ahead and vote republican. They have always whether in state level or federal level padded their pockets and thier friends.

Bill Clinton distorted the truth and flat out lied about the effect of the Las Vegas Strip caucus site's effects on the election by saying that the vote of those participating would somehow count five times as much.

He could've stayed neutral on the matter, but he went on record against allowing the largest single concentration of workers in all of Nevada from voting.

In actuality, the votes of those going to the Las Vegas caucus sites will probably be counted *less powerfully* than those in rural areas of Nevada, especially since his attempt to silence them will result in a very large turnout in opposition to him and his wife.

He and his wife could've stayed above the issue, or even spoke up to support the idea of letting everyone vote... but they didn't, and they're going to pay for their support of (largely hispanic) voter exclusion, both in Nevada, and, most likely, in Southern California, Arizona, and New Mexico too.

So, yes... it's a fair cop.

The union is right. The Clintons are trying to disenfranchise working people. Bill Clinton attacked the middle class and poor with NAFTA, and both of them are carrying on that tradition.

I have to agree with Mike's comments: the candidates support the unions when the unions support them; when the unions don't, then they're the enemy. Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows!

It's a THREE WAY statistical tie not a two way. Edwards is in this too since there's a 4% margin of error on that poll. That is extremely important because it shows that as of right now any one of them could claim a victory on Saturday.

John Edwards is the only candidate who cares about the unions. Did any other candidates support the striking writers in LA? No. Nothing else needs to be said. Actions speak louder than words. Be brave, Nevada. Ignore the mainstream media hype, the name calling and race baiting and vote for John Edwards!

Chicago South Side politics. Also eerily similar to the insurgent campaign being run by Obama's cousin Raila Odinga in Kenya. Rile up the minorities with explosive rhetoric of "disenfranchisment". Pit one "tribe" against the other. Not surprising since Obama and Odinga have supported each other's election efforts with verbal, fiscal, and tactical support.

Clinton and Obama are not your vehicle for change. They are DLC backed, special interest owned, more of the same...!!! People, get a clue! If you want the reforms that this country needs it can't be spawned by the D.C. satus quo and corporate owned media! Rob

Laura - i think u have it backwards! the libs run the dirty campaigns just look at Conneticut, just look at Obama

Look at NJ our governor paid off his lover who just happens to be head of the major union here so he would get votes.

You know what is funny here is the Dems and Republicans have the same problem they have Obama sending out hit squads so he looks clean, and Republicans have Huckabee doing the same, the only difference is Huckabee is a Liberal running as a conservative and Obama is a Socialist running as a Liberal!

Like I said on the Dem side Hilary is the best candidate which is not saying much.

Republicans need to throw out these liberals in Republican clothing!

Vote Thompson!!

I think there's some hypocrisy on all sides here. They love it when the unions are on their side, but when they're not, they're the enemy. The fact that the unions are split between the 3 candidates has made for some interesting moments, that's for sure.

We've got two very well funded candidates competing in this process. The people who have invested in them expect a return on their investment. It's bound to get nasting, even from the candidate of "hope."

Good lord, if these people need over $100,000,000 each (and counting)to get elected, maybe there's something wrong with their candidacies?

A copy of "How to Win Friends and Influence People" would be a lot cheaper and they wouldn't be "owned" by their investors.

I would say, finally Obama has 'found his voice'. Hillary and Bill DID try to silence thousands of union voters. Obama may get some union respect for sticking with them, and not weaseling out on a tough-but-fair ad at the first sign of 'whaaaaa' by Hillary. At this point, I understand that Hillary and Barak are in a statistical tie for the Nevada lead, so it was a gutsy call by Obama.

In Spanish there is a phrase for the way the Clintons and their surrogates (read: trained seals) savage their opponents ...

They "throw stones and then hide their hands."

That in itself would qualify Hillary--who professes not only innocence but victimhood in nearly all instances--and her followers as "sinverguenzas" (shameless).

There is another Spanish phrase that comes to mind here ...

"The truth hurts, but it doesn''t offend."

Except in the case of the Clintons, they pretend that it does.

Martin Edwin Andersen
Churchton, Maryland

Obama is running the sleaziest campaign I can remember in the Democratic Party. He belongs in the Republican Party with his idol, Ronald Reagan.