There is no evidence she won the popular vote in the caucus.
She may have won more state delegates, but that may or may not equate to the popular vote in the caucus

The significance of Barack winning more delegates is also that he got these delegates because he won the rural areas outside of LV, which shows he will probably be a better GE candidate.

Greg, if you have any information on the popular vote, please provide a link.

Otherwise, please refrain from making statements about the popular vote.

"hello_world wrote on January 20, 2008 10:28 AM:
Barack's camp was simply throwing Clinton's own spin back at them."

Sure. That's the audacity of a different kinda politics.

Anyway NV had 25 delegates. It’s possible obama will end up with one more. On Super Tuesday over 400 delegates will be up for grabs. So obama’s possible one more and $2.50 will get him a small coffee.

Now obama’s camp can claim by losing a battle he won a battle but here in the real world losing is losing. And I realize after obama’s second straight loss. After record numbers of Democrats came out to support Hillary obama’s true believers need something to hold on to. So I hope pretending a loss equals a win helps them through their derangement.

Number of delegates by state:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_2008

I am watching MTP on NBC and I wonder what if

Obama got Bloomberg to be his VP.

This would drive Clintons off the wagon. I love it.

Let us hope Obama beats the two Clintons. But, I know, this is an impossible reality.

The power of Clintons' attack machine is that you will vote for it, even when you do not want to do so. The reason is race, gender, and ethnicity baiting.

in response to your comments about the popular vote, I made a small change to the text above.

bm is REALLY REALLY REALLY a democrat too - all the way back since yesterday when he registered Dem. in Northern Nevade in order to elect the preferred GOP target Obama.

Barracks support.

1) GOP who want him as easily destroyed Dem nominee.
2) All Mommies little soccer boys who never read a single word about Politics or American history but think Obama is the only candidate who could possibly appear on a GQ cover.
3) Black people who have been sold by the MSM that Hillary is racist.

Coalition of the conninving and the easily fooled.

Can you imagine the extent to which Democrats would be climbing all over each other right now to lay claim to Bill Clinton's legacy if Hillary wasn't running? You can bet your ass no one on the Dem side would be speaking in glowing terms of Ronald Reagan, either.

Both camps are right. Clinton won the most state delegates, but based on the convulted calculations used by the Nevada Democratic Party, Obama will receive more national delegates-the only event that changes that is him dropping out of the race and endorsing Clinton.

The larger issue, at least to me, is where each of the candidates turns in the coming weeks. Clinton's success, has largely come on her ability to successfully distort Obama's record in a way that it drives low information voters to support her as the viable candidate. Being the relatively unknown candidate, it is easier to accept these distortions of his records. The problem for Clinton, however, is that she is significantly alienating a significant portion of potential democratic voters in the fall. Moreover, she risks killing the excitement and momentum for the eventual Democratic nominee. At some point, she needs to address this lest her eventual Democratic nominee victory is a pyrrhic one.

For Obama, this is the test. The Clintons are doing exactly what any Republican will do to him. Whatever you think of the Clinton's tactics, they are effective, especially against a candidate that has voluntarily decided to campaign above board. The most obvious tactic is to focus the medias attention on Clintons tactics. One point, Obama can't be the one to do it. Now is the time for his surrogates to hit the airwaves. While Obama is on the trail, he needs Kerry, Leahy and others who the media consider honest brokers to hit the teevee pushing back on the Clintons bs. If he can't handle this, then he doesn't deserve to be the nominee in the fall. And I say this as an ardent Obama supporter.

Reading Paul above confirms my worst fears. A vote for Clinton in the primary is a vote for McCain in the general. For those of you democrats who are undecided, or supporting Kucinich or Edwards and are able to vote in SC or on Feb 5th - please - help the democrats win by electing not only a brilliant person, but the candidate who can win independents - Obama. Please use your vote. Kucinich and Edwards cannot help the country if they can't win. But you can!

Bill Clinton is completely freaking me out right now. I just heard a guy from Newsweek say they call him King Lear in the office. He's raging and wagging that finger. Hillary either can't control him or chooses not to - while he damages the democratic party. He always put himself first and although I was happy to have him as a president - I am so so sick of him now. No more Bush or Clinton presidencys - please!

Let us hope Obama beats the two Clintons. But, I know, this is an impossible reality.

The power of Clintons' attack machine is that you will vote for it, even when you do not want to do so. The reason is race, gender, and ethnicity baiting.

Go Obama!

For those who say they are true democrats but will not vote for Clinton vs Mc Cain and the same goes for those who would not vote for Obama vs Mc Cain.
I will vote for who the party choices. Mc Cain promise another 100 years in Iraq. Can we really afford the lives that will be lost and the money they are spending over there. The longer we stay the longer we are hated by the rest of the world. Anyone but a Republican

Keith, while I agree that this type of campaign that Obama is seeing from the Clinton's is exactly what he'd see from the Republicans in the general, I've come to the conclusion that these tactics are much more effective coming from within the party during the primary. Especially when you think of how emotionally invested so many Democrats have been over time to the Clintons. When the President of the United States and former leader of our party dismisses Obama as a kid and characterizes his record on the war as a fairy-tale, that carries weight, fairly or not. When he says that the media hasn't been treating the Clintons fairly, people who haven't been paying attention look at the couple numbnuts that had been overboard in announcing Hillary DOA after Iowa, and think, "omg, the media all hate the Clintons!"

The Republicans will attack Obama on experience, and rely on distorting his record. They'll try to subtly (and grossly) play racial politics and they'll outright lie about his past history and background. But they've been at that forever, and diminishing returns along with a general distrust of Republicans would go a long way toward combating these tactics. I honestly believe they'd only work with people and in areas that would never, ever vote Democratic anyway.

The problem comes when you when you see people within your own party spread the Muslim and medrasa garbage, play one race against another, and suggest that Obama was a "roll of the dice" who was a drug-addled, neophyte who harbored a secret conservative ideology despite his lifelong dedication to progressive ideals and goals, that will move some people.

When it's Bill Clinton vs someone they're just getting to know, as much as I'd like to think differently, that's a tough matchup for the new guy to win. Republicans could never hope to get that kind of legitimacy in their smear campaign.

The 2008 campaign adage or axiom --

The power of Clintons' attack machine is that you will vote for it, even when you do not want to do so. The reason is race, gender, and ethnicity baiting.

++++

On MTP today, this power was agreed upon by all the panelists.

Thus, the power of Clintons' attack machine is known by all except the voters.

How to share this power of Clintons' attack machine with the people?

Keith wrote on January 20, 2008 11:42 AM:

The larger issue, at least to me, is where each of the candidates turns in the coming weeks. Clinton's success, has largely come on her ability to successfully distort Obama's record in a way that it drives low information voters to support her as the viable candidate.

That was a balanced post that recognized and then tried to address what will be Obama's GE problem, since he won't be able to just whine about the GOP smear machine's "lies and distortions" of his record. It is a problem that Obama simply must address if he is to be a credible GE candidate that can be trusted to push back effectively against the smear machine.

Recycling and amending slightly from one of my posts on another thread:

If you can prove that Hillary's purported "lies and distortions" are so egregious as to be out of bounds of politics as usual, then you might have a point. Otherwise [which I think is more to the point], if Obama cannot handle the tame stuff that has been thrown at him (i.e., if that is indeed why he has already lost twice in a row), then doesn't that make him a terrible candidate for the Dems to field in the GE against the Atwater/Rove Smear Machine? Think about that [I do mean THINK ABOUT THAT!] and tell me how Obama can possibly win in November if he has already crumbled twice under mild assaults from his opponents? Just before Iowa, Obama had similarly gone after Edwards and whined because some 527 groups had been airing positive ads on behalf Edwards! But here's the good part that should remind people of how hypocritical Obama is: when the Culinary Workers Union in NV ran ads which were not only false but were also insulting to Hillary personally, Obama refused to denounce them! It is bad when groups supporting Edwards do it, but good when groups supporting Obama do the same thing but only in a nasty way!

Obama won't win by whining. He'll win by fighting, but how can he fight without inviting derisive attacks from his opponent, having staked his candidacy on being above the fray and practicing the "politics of hope"? He is in a straight jacket, in a bind, because he put himself there. Do you, in fact, realize that Obama's straight jacket would continue to hamper his ability to attack the GOP nominee if he wins the nomination? The Rove election playbook calls for the opponent's perceived strength to be turned against him, which means that Obama would be forced to abandon the "politics of hope" and fight dirty. But this would be a lose-lose situation for him: if he attacks his opponent, he'll be derided as a phony who has masqueraded as a "new kind of politician" but was in reality just a garden variety politician; just like that the man's "mystique" would be gone. But if he does not hit back, then it would be 2004 all over again. To have surrogates do Obama's push back 24/7, as you suggest, might backfire as it might make him seem weak and wimpy, and might bring to the fore questions about whether he is ready to make tough decisions or take the fight to the enemies of America...

I feel your pain and Obama's, but it is self-inflicted...

Markg8, unfortunately this campaign has proven to me once and for all that you cannot believe anything that comes from Bill Clinton's mouth. He is convinced that this primary is a referendum on his presidency, and it's clear that both him and Hillary are willing to to any length and even seriously damage the party in order to win. I'm sick of it, and no amount of post-campaign "true democrat" guilt trip will get me back on board with the Clinton's at this point.

I've mentioned here before about how I needle Republicans that I know who want to disavow neo-cons as not being "conservative", and I tell them that they listened to their lies, and excused their morally bankrupt tactics and philosophy. Republicans turned to neo-cons to help them win elections, and in the end they let them lead. It's too late for them to disavow the neo-cons.

In a very real way, the way I see it, the Clinton's are our neo-cons. And I'm not just talking about their support for the war and Hillary's vote for Iran. I'm talking about a group that promises electoral success at the cost of legitimate and moral tactics. If Bush II taught me anything, its that as they campaign, they will govern. Along that same vein, Bill's campaign taught me that seemingly small lies during a campaign (I couldn't inhale) turn into huge ones later (I did not have sex with that woman).

I'm willing to fight for my party against what I consider to be a rot. But if that rot wins out, I don't look back in 4 or 8 years and think, "I can't believe that I actually supported them". I don't want to feel as foolish as many otherwise sensible Republicans that I know now feel. It give me no pleasure to say it, but count me out in November if Clinton is the nominee.

A heartfelt thanks to CalD for being consistently the most sane of the anti-Obama faction. No capital letters, no soapbox, just good points.

So, a question for you. A large part of my frustration with the process is that HRC's lack of integrity, and the hollowness of the "experience" argument are so glaringly obvious. Can you give your view on why her faction does not fell this way?

Interloper. All in all a good strategy - anyone you disagree with is delusional, unity of repubs is based on "extensive evidence" and voting for HRC is voting in favor of destruction of party. I'll let you Obama fans continue your circle jerk. Post after post of self congratulations. But on Feb 5, I think Obama will be done.

Nevada was a tie. N.H. was a tie. Iowa was indeed a three-way tie.

Enough of this "electoral college" type of winner-takes-all thinking when it simply doesn't apply!

Speaking of "DLC Democrats," I might add that Hillary Clinton isn't the one who's been paying homage to Ronald Reagan lately. Yikes.

There's a diary on Kos with a transcript of Obama's speech @ Ebenezer Baptist in Atlanta today. Everybody go read it.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/20/115840/058/343/440020

This is democratic establishment B.S. Trying to appear as though the primary vote wasn't split right down the middle. The democratic establishment is trying to ease Obama out and clearly backing Hillary. But these are the primaries, and clearly the DLC controls the party and hasn't learned the lesson from its past failures. People who are backing Hillary are going to have a rude awakening in November because people are fed up with the status quo. The more people complain about Hillary, the tighter the DLC tries to control the outcomes of these primaries. But thats not going to work in the general election. People have had enough of the Clintons. It can't get any more simple than that. This nasty game Hillary and the DLC is playing is going to come back in November. Intstant Karma. And the pain the Clintons are going to feel will be self-inflicted. If Obama eventually endorses Hillary, don't expect that to transfer to the general election. You are taking the general mood of the country for granted. It's not a mood or sentiment that supports Hillary, and you are deluding yourselves.

CalD:

So this isn't paying homage:

Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks.

Of course, your response will be to push the bullshit response put out by the Clinton campaign. If you believe it, fine. It's a silly response (on par with the dog ate my homework), but if it works for her supporters fine.

Look you can try and distort Obama's words, but you aren't dealing with low information voters on these threads. And the fact that you have no interest in accurately reproducing Obama's statements just furthe undercuts your credibility on this point.

Keith:

"Clinton's success, has largely come on her ability to successfully distort Obama's record in a way that it drives low information voters to support her as the viable candidate. Being the relatively unknown candidate, it is easier to accept these distortions of his records."

My reply

What record? He started running for president two years into his first Senate term. Obama's problem is that he thought his one-note Messiah routine would be enough to propel him to the nomination and has yet to develop a convincing second act. The more people see of him the more people realize that there isn't much "there" there.

Personally, I don't think you'll have to worry about how Obama will respond to Republican attacks in the Fall because the majority of the Democratic electorate will not be inclined to nominate him at this point.

May be it is not clear to many, but it is to me. CalD is another tool for the two Clintons, just like Rangel, Kerrey, Shaheen.

Why not, CalD, say more nasty things?

On CNN, there was a critical commentary on the historic speech by Obama.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/20/115840/058/343/440020

On MTP, there was a thorough discussion by more than 4 political analysts on the Clintons baiting (race, gender, and ethnicity).

CalD, still sore about Obama.

Common:

No, in fact. Respecting someone's political skills is one thing. Getting all gushy about how Reagan "put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it," is something I can do without from Democrats.

CalID wrote:

"No, in fact. Respecting someone's political skills is one thing. Getting all gushy about how Reagan "put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it," is something I can do without from Democrats."

I'm a Clinton supporter but I don't have trouble with Obama's comments. Many Democrats may not like these sentiments, but the country at the time was ready for Reagan. The fact that he won an overwhelming ratification for a second term only a year or two from the low point of a brutal recession clearly evidences the nation's belief in his leadership.