Principled leaders never vote present. Never. They "stand" for things.
Via Inside Nevada Politics, Clinton was asked if she supported the lawsuit filed to prevent casino employees from voting at their workplace as part of nine at-large precincts the Nevada Democratic party set up to try to enfranchise as many people as possible:
Asked about the lawsuit Clinton said:
"I know about the lawsuit. I hope it can be resolved by the courts and by the state party. Obviously, we want as many people as possible to participate."
In a later interview, I asked Clinton again about the lawsuit. She repeated her criticism of the caucus process, that it leaves too many people out and said she wants as many people as possible to participate. Does she support the lawsuit?
"I have no opinion on the lawsuit."
Does she have an opinion on the at-large precincts as a way to make the process more fair?
"I don't. I just don't know."
In other words, she wants as many people as possible to participate, she's just not sure about some people and isn't willing to take a stand for expanding the number of people able to participate if it could potentially harm her campaign.
The Clintons have had a terrible record on voting rights this election. First, they tried to discourage college students from participating in Iowa. Next, they disparaged same-day registration, an election reform that has led to surging voter participation in the states where it's been enacted. And now, they're involved in suing the Nevada Democratic party to ensure that union workers aren't able to caucus.
And while Clinton takes no position, her surrogates are hard at work. Remember how she insisted that Iowa college students from out of state aren't really Iowans and shouldn't be legitimate caucus-goers? Note the pattern:
Union officials backing Mrs. Clinton note that many members of the culinary local are not American citizens and therefore cannot participate in the caucuses.
That's right, they're probably all illegals. How could any of them vote? I'm sure culinary workers would be thrilled to hear that.
Now, given the choice to either side with union workers or with corporate casino management, the Clinton campaign is tripping over itself to embrace management, launching a conference call with heads of casinos attacking Obama and the union.
The Nevada blog Las Vegas Gleaner noted that the casino corporation Harrah's, whose head was prominently featured on the conference call, donated some $50,000 to the Republican candidate for governor is 2006. With much sarcasm:
So to recap. Prominent personalities from deep in the bowels of the powerful corporate gambling infrastructure, renowned locally for its deep concern for an open and fair political process that gives everyone a voice no matter what their income, point of view or socioeconomic status, would like all the people who are voting in a Democratic caucus to know that the world's biggest gambling corporations prefer Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. Okeydoke. Noted.
Democrats should not be in the business of trying to suppress the vote and certainly not in the position of suing their own party to punish a union that has endorsed an opponent.
And Democrats should not be giving a platform to corporate management to challenge the unions that organize their workers. As Mike Huckabee put it, "I believe most Americans want their next President to remind them of they guy they work with, not the guy who laid them off."
And Democrats should not run attack mailers against their opponents in libertarian-leaning states reinforcing negative stereotypes about the Democratic party by claiming they'll "let taxpayers keep more of their own money" while their liberal opponents will launch a "trillion-dollar tax increase on the middle class."
For more coverage, check out One Million Strong.