Where do Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-New York) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Illinois), the leading Democratic presidential candidates, stand on Indian gaming?

According to Dianne Barker-Harrold, former legal counsel for the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, the candidates' positions don't matter much. What matters more is their overall understanding of Indian Country, as well the people they appoint to positions in the administration and to federal judgeships, she said.

"So, being for or against Indian gaming is not really the issue for presidential candidates, as much as being informed about all the issues in Indian Country, which include strengthening tribal sovereignty, bolstering business in Indian Country, housing, health care, poverty levels, children, education, elders and crime," Barker-Harrold told The Tahlequah Daily Press.

Mike Miller, the spokesperson for the Cherokee Nation, expressed a similar view With no Indian gaming legislation currently in the works, he said tribes won't be affected by the candidates' positions on the issue.

Clinton has supported an off-reservation casino in New York that the Bush administration rejected. Obama has expressed concerns about the "moral and social cost" of gaming but says he supports a tribe's right to engage in gaming.

Get the Story:
Election 2008: Indian gaming and the candidates (The Tahlequah Daily Press 1/28)