The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Making the Rounds

Bill Clinton Takes On Reporter Over Vegas Caucuses

By Garance Franke-Ruta
One subject the chatterers are chattering about on the political blogs is this ABC News video -- "Rage! Bill Clinton Hot Over Lawsuit" -- of former president Bill Clinton arguing with a reporter in Nevada over the lawsuit to invalidate the special at-large casino caucuses in Las Vegas Saturday. Here's the YouTube version:


Posted at 11:44 AM ET on Jan 17, 2008  | Category:  Making the Rounds
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Welcome to Hil Force One | Next: Leahy Endorses Obama


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Were you idiots that are damming Clinton and his administration born yesterday or are you speaking from the asylum? You might try an open mind using some common sense with a compairson to Clinton's eight years and the bush seven going on eight. Remember where the country was after Clinton and recgonize where it is now and how quickly bush ran it into the ground.

Clinton isn't the first president nor the last to use the White House for under the cover activity. While he wasn't too smart in how handled, his dalliances were no worse than most of the Republican's that were so rightously trying to get him. That said, he did his job as president and most certainly much better than bush has or will.

I don't care how many people a president screws, just as long as he takes care of the country's business. Clinton did, bush didn't.

Posted by: 1ken | January 19, 2008 7:10 PM

Yeah, I saw that, TennGurl, but thanks. So much for the "Equal Protection" Clause.

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2008 4:17 PM

CLINTON THINKS WE HAVE THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT BECAUSE LYNDON JOHNSON SIGNED IT.

SO WHY WAS SHE CAMPAIGNING FOR BARRY GOLDWATER(AGAINST JOHNSON) WHO VOTED NO ON THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT???

BY THE WAY CHECK OUT BILL CLINTON RACIST POSTCARD HE SENT TO HIS GRANDMA IN 1966 DURING THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT.

http://serr8d.blogspot.com/2007/10/bill-clinton-racist-postcard-buy-it-now.html

Posted by: laplumelefirmament | January 17, 2008 3:02 PM

CLINTON THINKS WE HAVE THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT BECAUSE LYNDON JOHNSON SIGNED IT.

SO WHY WAS SHE CAMPAIGNING FOR BARRY GOLDWATER(AGAINST JOHNSON) WHO VOTED NO ON THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT???

BY THE WAY CHECK OUT BILL CLINTON RACIST POSTCARD HE SENT TO HIS GRANDMA IN 1966 DURING THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT.

http://serr8d.blogspot.com/2007/10/bill-clinton-racist-postcard-buy-it-now.html

Posted by: laplumelefirmament | January 17, 2008 3:00 PM

Posted by: TennGurl | January 17, 2008 2:59 PM

Reporters are AMERICANS, first and foremost!!!

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2008 2:38 PM

The point of a caucus is that it is a moment in time, it requires an investment in time, and not everyone can go. Somebody's always working. Somebody's always disenfranchised. The idea here was to enfranchise more Culinary Workers, a bunch of whom are concentrated on the Strip. Enfranchising the Culinary Workers was apparently all well and good until the "wrong person" got their endorsement. The Nevada Democratic org was on board. The DNC was on board. Four of the plaintiffs were on the committee that put the reco together, I believe. Now Bill is talking about this 5x stuff, which is a gross distortion, and just a cover story for why the suit is filed. Of course the Clinton campaign is not a party to the suit, that would be too bald. But this thing didn't come out of nowhere. The teachers may have a legitimate beef, if they are in fact being "forced" to work the caucuses in their schools, which may not be where they live. This strikes me as odd. I will be the secretary of my town's caucus (Maine), and we have an absentee procedure I'm undertaking, so I can worry about working and not caucusing.

All that said, the hypocrisy is breakthtaking, even better, the temper tantrum is entertaining, vintage. What is he asking the reporter to stand up for, he's a reporter, for God's sake.

Posted by: kparrparr | January 17, 2008 2:22 PM

RyanMcC1:

The PARTY to this lawsuit did not "sign off" on the change -- and the point of their lawsuit is still a valid one -- wouldn't it be fair-er to make sure ALL people who are working and want to caucus get that opportunity?

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2008 2:09 PM

JakeD:
Why does anyone think it is fair to change the rules last-minute on where caucuses... are held just so that Obama gets more votes? If a change is going to be made to accomodate certain people in their workplaces, wouldn't it be fair-er to make sure ALL people who are working and want to caucus get that opportunity?

I wonder how Bill would feel about this had the culinary workers endorsed Hillary. Something tells me he wouldn't be as fired up. Regardless, your facts are wrong (again). These rules have been in place since March and no one said a peep. Now that Obama won the coveted endorsement, the teachers union -- which hasn't officially endorsed any candidate but is said to lean heavily towards Clinton -- has gone to court to change it.

You say you don't support the Clintons, yet bolster their shaky arguments and criticize Obama and Edwards on nearly every post. That's your right. But, please, do a little research before distributing falsehoods.

Posted by: RyanMcC1 | January 17, 2008 1:53 PM

What does that mean -- "counted 5 times more powerfully?" Why does the reporter not clear that up?

It seems to me that the Teachers Union is taking the fall through some kind of inside baseball agreement.

The crying, the race-baiting, the lawsuit -- the Clintons must think the public is pretty oblivious to not notice a pattern.

Posted by: crumbtrail | January 17, 2008 1:50 PM

JakeD; I have been unable to make any sense of what is going on in Nev. What Bubba is saying futhers my suspecions that something is not right there, according to Hoyle, as some would say.

Posted by: lylepink | January 17, 2008 1:29 PM

The Clintons are cheaters. Months ago they signed off on these rules along with every other campaign. Then Obama gets the support of the state's largest union last week, and couple days later the Clinton surrogates in Clark County -- including some people who participated in drawing up these plans -- try to find a way to suppress that union vote as punishment (disenfranchising perhaps 10,000 union members if not more).

One of the sacred rules in a democracy is that you don't rig the vote by putting up road-blocks in front of people just because they may not vote for you. You win or lose on the merits.

Apparently the Clintons believe otherwise.

We won't forget.

Posted by: JPRS | January 17, 2008 1:21 PM

The impression I have from reading a bit about the issue is that the leadership of the cullinary workers union had connections to the Clinton campaign, and was expected to endorse Hillary, when they decided after Iowa to jump on the Obama bandwagon (due to the Union's high minority rate and Obama's surge, perhaps??). What I wonder is if the state Democratic leadership, which is known to be close to the Clintons, set the caucuses up this way, could it be they were trying to stack the deck in their favor?

Posted by: BABucher | January 17, 2008 1:13 PM

The other candidates campaign are so obvious that they are so desperate. They try everything, anything just to say something bad to either Hillary or Bill Clinton. Well, I know and most os know that it is difficult really to accept the fact these couples did good for our country. Accomplishments, guys..hard for you to take since you cannot compare yourselves to what these couples had done and will continue doing for the country for the people of the United Sates. We cannot afford believe me to vote someone without or less experience to run our beloved country. This is for sure. Fortunately and luckily, Hillary is running. Hillary is by so far the best qualified and experienced candidate that we have. Viva America! Viva Hillary!

Posted by: lianette_steele | January 17, 2008 12:46 PM

ProudIndependent:

Elizabeth Edwards campaigned for her husband a few days ago -- does your logic apply to her as well?

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2008 12:26 PM

You know, I am not voting for Hillary in a million years, but he's got a point here -- even a broken clock is right twice a day -- why does anyone think it is fair to change the rules last-minute on where caucuses (cauci? rhymes with HAWK-EYE) are held just so that Obama gets more votes? If a change is going to be made to accomodate certain people in their workplaces, wouldn't it be fair-er to make sure ALL people who are working and want to caucus get that opportunity?

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2008 12:24 PM

Bill Clinton is a well known liar. I'm sorry but who on earth would believe anything coming from his mouth? I surely do not. He and Hillary are behind this lawsuit and he knows it! I hope the lawsuit is dismissed today.

Also, IS Bill running for President or Hillary? Are they running together? I can't tell. He and Hillary both lack class. He needs to go home and allow this woman to run her own campaign! She wants to run..let her run. Why in the heck is he there???

Posted by: ProudIndependent | January 17, 2008 12:24 PM

I don't get the "rage" part - except as another non-delivering headline attention grabber. He explained his position several times and flatly denied the Clinton campaign was behind the dispute. Prove that it was, and then your headline writer won't have to try so hard.

Posted by: janis_h | January 17, 2008 12:22 PM

If she can't control her husband and her campaign what makes you think she handle the presidency.

Posted by: TennGurl | January 17, 2008 12:22 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company