(I left the following comment on another blog on a related topic, I am re-posting it here with minor changes.)
"As things stand today, Hillary Clinton will probably win the nomination. There are just not enough older "liberal" baby boomers who can jump this last hurdle (of race) of their discomfort yet to vote for Obama. Edwards would have been an acceptable second choice but he is not winning.
Give the Clintons credit. They not only can speak from both sides of their mouths, they can also posture from both sides of the power divide. Today in Nevada, even before the caucuses were under way, the Clinton camp (personified by Bill Clinton) played the classic victim by accusing Obama supporters of voter suppression!"
The above comment was generated in part by this report from Nevada – Saturday’s venue for the Democratic caucus.
Bill Clinton today accused the union backing Barack Obama of illegally blocking its workers from backing his wife in an orchestrated campaign of "voter suppression" in Nevada’s Democratic caucuses.
Mr Clinton, who spent 90 minutes at the Mirage Casino in Las Vegas today shaking voters’ hands, was told by several workers that their union, which has backed Mr Obama, has told them they could not register to vote unless they supported the Illinois senator.
Mr Obama was endorsed by the Culinary Workers’ Union, the biggest and most powerful trade organisation in Nevada. It carries particular clout in the casinos along the Las Vegas Strip.
Mr Clinton said: "They [the workers in the union] were told to sign up by Wednesday, and told it had to be for Obama, and if they had not signed up, that they had to wait until November to wait for Hillary." He told The Times: "It’s really interesting that on the eve of Martin Luther King day we are seeing voter suppression.
Brilliant! Don’t just accuse your African American opponent of voter suppression, an age old tactic against minority voters, but also evoke Martin Luther King Day. Many saw this as preparing for a possible unfavorable outcome for Hillary and pre-emptive vilification of Obama.
Mr Clinton’s comments came before news of his wife’s victory, and would clearly have been part of the campaign’s post-vote spin if the former First Lady has been defeated.
The brass knuckles politicking that Bill Clinton has undertaken on behalf of his wife is raising eyebrows within the Democratic Party. Some influential party members do not want to see an ex-president getting into the mosh pit of campaign politics duking it out like an ordinary politician.
Prominent Democrats are upset with the aggressive role that Bill Clinton is playing in the 2008 campaign, a role they believe is inappropriate for a former president and the titular head of the Democratic Party. In recent weeks, Sen. Edward Kennedy and Rep. Rahm Emanuel, both currently neutral in the Democratic contest, have told their old friend heatedly on the phone that he needs to change his tone and stop attacking Sen. Barack Obama, according to two sources familiar with the conversations who asked for anonymity because of their sensitive nature. Clinton, Kennedy and Emanuel all declined to comment.
On balance, aides to both Bill and Hillary still see Bill as a huge net plus in fund-raising, attracting large crowds and providing a megaphone to raise doubts about Obama–even if some of those doubts are distortions. But there’s concern that in hatcheting the Illinois senator and losing his temper with the news media (last week he thrashed a San Francisco TV reporter for asking about a lawsuit filed by Clinton-backing teachers union members to limit the number of Nevada caucuses), Clinton is drawing down his political capital and harming his role as a global statesman. "This is excruciating," says a member of the Clintons’ circle, who asked for anonymity. "But the stakes couldn’t be higher. It’s worth it to tarnish himself a bit now to win the presidency."
Another curious thing. Four Democratic senators from the very red states of S. Dakota (Tim Johnson), N. Dakota (Kent Conrad), Nebraska (Ben Nelson) and Missouri (Claire McCaskill) and Janet Napolitano, the governor of Arizona have endorsed Obama. Two of these five are also women. They all know the two candidates and I doubt that they are on a suicide mission. What does that say about Obama? More importantly, what does it say about the Clintons who have been the stars of the Democratic Party for more than a decade?
Accidental Blogger 