Posted on 01/17/2008 3:28:01 AM PST by Timeout
The link above shows the entire video.
Snip from accompanying write up:
The Back Story: Clinton in the Bay Area By Mark Matthews
The Clinton campaign says it has nothing to do with the Nevada lawsuit filed by allies of Hillary Clinton.
The lawsuit seeks to shut down the so called “at large” caucus sites that were approved for a number of casinos.
Yesterday a campaign spokeswoman in Nevada said “it’s in the hands of the court we have nothing to do with it.”
But it’s clear the campaign isn’t completely neutral on the subject.
Today Bill Clinton came to Oakland and I had the opportunity to ask him a question about the lawsuits and he was good enough to answer.
In fact he stood and answered my questions for several minutes even as Oakland’s mayor tried to pull him away.
So I’m grateful for the face time with the former President. But a couple of the things he asserted aren’t exactly accurate.
He told me the casino caucus goers would have a five to one advantage over Nevadans who were voting in other communities.
Technically that is possible but highly unlikely. The state democratic party decided that delegates to the state convention would be apportioned out according to a number of factors. For example rural areas of Nevada will have more weight than cities. The state party does that on purposes so that candidates will be encouraged to ignore sparsely populated areas of the state.
Most precincts are set up according to population size. But with the casino “at large” precincts…it was decided they would be weighted according to turn out. So for example if a lot of people turn out at the casino sites…each vote will be worth a little less than other precincts with a smaller population.
The only way the casino caucus goers could have five times the voting power would be if very few people go to the casino sites and a lot of people turn out in the less populated areas. Now if very few show up at the casinos they won’t get as many delegates..and if a lot of them show up they won’t have the extra “more powerful” vote that Clinton is talking about.…
In any event the casino caucuses won’t account for more than six percent of the total number of delegates. That’s the way the rules were written.
And the state party approved those rules as did the national democratic party.
It wasn’t until after Barack Obama got the endorsement of the culinary workers union that anyone objected to the casino locations.
A lot is being made of the tone of the conversation between Clinton and myself and for that I would encourage anyone to watch the entire exchange for themselves. We are posting it on this website.
There’s something creepy about the term “purple rage” being in the same sentence with the name “Bill Clinton.”
I assume they meant to say " ... will be encouraged NOT to ignore sparsely populated areas of the state ... "
Incredibly sloppy reporting and editing, plus no FReepers catching on? What gives?
Just watched the video. BJC is such a disgusting piece of crap. Nobody accuses him directly of having had anything to do with this, and he feels the need to say at least 3 times that he didn’t have anything to do with this. What do you think that means?
Most precincts are set up according to population size. But with the casino "at large" precincts... it was decided they would be weighted according to turn out. So for example if a lot of people turn out at the casino sites... each vote will be worth a little less than other precincts with a smaller population. The only way the casino caucus goers could have five times the voting power would be if very few people go to the casino sites and a lot of people turn out in the less populated areas. Now if very few show up at the casinos they won't get as many delegates..and if a lot of them show up they won't have the extra "more powerful" vote that Clinton is talking about... In any event the casino caucuses won't account for more than six percent of the total number of delegates. That's the way the rules were written. And the state party approved those rules as did the national democratic party. It wasn't until after Barack Obama got the endorsement of the culinary workers union that anyone objected to the casino locations.But I'm sure that the Clinton campaign has *absolutely nothing* to do with the lawsuit.
Yeeeesh! He looks older than dirt! The years aren’t being kind to him. He and Queen Jezzie deserve each other.
I think you’ll probably have to stand in line.
“CLINTON FATIGUE” - It’s already beginning to set in again. Sigh . . .
In a fit of rage, his WINO (wife in name only) Hillary destroyed the formal painting he had of himself, the one that used to do all the aging for him...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.