Only team Obama could claim a defeat as a victory. When Hillary is elected president, will Obama claim to be president? Weird. Get a grip. Hillary won, has the big mo, and is going to win the nomination.

The Nevada caucus was too ugly. "Losing" it is like a badge of honor, considering how the two 100 million dollar candidates raised their cash. Note the Daley-machine connections the Obamas have. Edwards must stay in the race even to the convention. He has steered the two upper middle class rooted candidates (I mean, c'mon-Obama's gmama was a bank officer) into more attractive campaign platforms. They would not be as popular had he not lead them there. Once the media gets wind of how unpopular they are for trying to ruin his candidacy watch out! BOYCOTT ALL ADVERTISERS ON MSNBC, AND ALL NETWORKS WHO DISCOUNT EDWARDS BEFORE SUPER TUESDAY!

TPM:

Please visit the real story of how Clintons won in NV:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/19/162953/644/790/439573

based upon an assumption that delegate preferences will remain the same between now and April 2008

So is the state saying that the delegates can change their minds? WTF? What's the point of this exercise if the delegates don't have to vote according to their proportion?

This is an absolutely screwy situation.

What the heck is going on? You mean this thing isn't over? Why aren't the county and state conventions essentially pro forma? Does this mean the "campaigning" goes on until April? And if so, what was today about?

Given that the Nevada Democratic party is solidly behind Clinton, this smells fishy to me.

What a crappy job of educating their kids the boomers did! All the Obama kids seem STUPID!
"What, you mean he has to campaign MORE?" one of my friends kids said after Iowa. NO LYNNDEE this was not the big enchilada. Someone shove a newsapper under her nose--or a government book!

It'sacaucus -- I'm not a boomer kid. I'm a boomer. Hillary's base, supposedly. Except I'm not.

And you are full of it.

I understood the caucus election of state county and state delegates to be just as Keith said: the delegates are expected to vote their proportional representation. If that's not the case, then apparently nobody clued the candidates in either, because they sure did a lot of campaigning for something that, if you can believe the Clinton campaign, was just a ticket to the show.

And you know what else? I'm not buying your attempt at an insulting little tirade.

I read the NYT description of the Nevada process that Mattsmom posted, and am no closer to making sense of the NV process.

Since none of the delegates to either the county or state conventions are bound to any candidate, could it be that nobody really won anything today?

And HilObama are obligated to them because of all the dirty, republican style money both CHICAGO rooted pols took to get this far. EDWARDS AND KUCINICH are our only hopes. Otherwise--save up your money and try to leave this shell of a democracy.

>> I predict SC gets very messy

Hoo boy. Fasten your seat belts. It's going to be a bumpy ride.

>>> The notion that Obama won anything in NV is just pure spin

Well, if it's truly all up for the grabs, then the notion that Clinton won anything is also pure spin. But of course, you aren't saying that, are you? You're saying Clinton won because... why? Nothing else can be said at the moment? Or because, as we all know, the Nevada Democratic party is solidly behind her and if there's any vote-switching to be done it'll be in her direction?

Or... what exactly are you saying?

So no one won today? Interesting. I guess the Clintons need to pull back that memo and Edwards is in this one to the end.

Tell me again, why do we have these caucuses and primaries if the state delegates can do whatever the hell they want?

Also, dschungu: According to your own analysis, Obama would not benefit from playing the race card. The only person that would benefit from race being interjected in the race is Clinton. Which explains why they (the Clintons) brought race into this thing. It helps them and hurts Obama.

Here's the story: When Obama wins "The People Have Spoken" When Clinton wins it's "The Clintons Stole The Election"
In The math classes I took 51% is greater than 45%. Maybe like President Bush, Obama supporters use "fuzzy math".

Alan:

According to dcshungu, nobody won anything. Apparently, the delegates can change their minds to vote for whoever they believe will be the nominee. So, you can roll back your condenscion and sit on the sideline like the rest of us trying to figure out what the hell is going on here.

I don't understand. You mean the obama camp put out false information and greg sargent rushed to post it. So where is the news... pretty much like any other day.

A record number of Democrats came out and supported Hillary. Ya know who won today? We all did.

>>> In The math classes I took 51% is greater than 45%. Maybe like President Bush, Obama supporters use "fuzzy math".

But didn't you read? This was all for naught. A practice run, if you will. The campaign for Nevada's delegates has only begun.

Or is this conclusion just more fuzzy math?

Hillary supporters, what say ye?! :D

Anonymous: Unlike you I was going with the FACTS. Hillary WON ! Stop trying to spin defeats into victory.

>>> The thing I keep wondering most though, is what kind of nasty-bomb will Barack Obama drop tomorrow to try and deny Clinton any additional momentum from the Nevada win.

Wonderful! Another silver-tongued Hillary spokesperson for party unity!

I'm charmed.

Looks like Obama is pulling a page out of the Bush playbook from 2000.

Looks like the AP is correct then--at least according to the update. As it stands, Obama won more delegates than Clinton.

Ok: HRC supporters you can go back to denigrating the Obama supporters.

an insight into how the latino vote swung so far toward senator clinton?

When all is said and done the real point of all of this is to elect a Democrat in November. It is very distressing to see that some are personalizing this race as one between my person, who is pure and good against your person who is not to cbe trusted and is bad. As Democrats we must not put ourselves in the position that the perfect, (my first preference) is the enemy of the good, (the other Democrats.

Please let us keep some focus on what we are about. We are trying to save our country from the edge of destruction that the Republicans are working overtime to impose on us. Let's keep everything in perspective.

Many cheers for the completely unprecedented turnout, by the way! Extraordinary! It bodes well for the fall.

Edwardsisabetterchoice said

"Losing" [the NV caucus] is like a badge of honor, considering how the two 100 million dollar candidates raised their cash.

But Obama has more than twice the amount and I think thrice the individual donor count in small donations from individuals (less than $200) than Clinton OR Edwards do. I do not see how you can turn this into an effective attack.

Anonymous wrote on January 19, 2008 9:29 PM:

Alan:

According to dcshungu, nobody won anything. Apparently, the delegates can change their minds to vote for whoever they believe will be the nominee. So, you can roll back your condenscion and sit on the sideline like the rest of us trying to figure out what the hell is going on here

I do not understand where the confusion comes from: Hillary won 51% to 45%. That is what the headlines will say. That in itself is a win. For Obama to try to spin a 6% loss into a victory is ludicrous. How about the delegate count? Let me again post the NV Dem party selection rules:

Sixteen of the 25 delegates are allocated proportionally to presidential candidates based on the support for the candidates in each of the state’s three Congressional districts. Nine delegates are allocated to candidates based on the support among all of the delegates attending the convention. The remaining eight unpledged delegates are chosen from party leaders.

It means that Hillary now has 51% and Obama 45% of the 16 convention delegates that will be proportionately allocated on the basis of their respective support in the three Congressional Districts. The rest of the delegates will depend on the support of delegates attending the convention, which is unknown at this point; the rest will be super-delegates. Obama did not win NV, and as of now, Hillary won simply because she won the larger share of the state delegates, and the positive narrative...

From a post on the kos:

Hillary Clinton is the Tonya Harding of politics.

I laughed my ass off. It is soooo true.

Run John Run! All the way to the convention!

Obama is too dirty to win for us in november. Be realistic. I don't want repugs back in!

>>> I do not understand where the confusion comes from: Hillary won 51% to 45%. That is what the headlines will say. That in itself is a win.

Of course. I don't dispute that at all. She has momentum, which will help with fund-raising and send signals to both the party establishment and downstream primary voters re her electability.

I don't hear anyone here disputing that. I'm certainly not.

Storm:

MSNBC reports that significant nunmbers of Latino's voted for Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama, who recieved most African American votes.

the 2 corporate candidates are beating each other up too much. both are dirty. Otherwise--where's Gore?

ONE HERE!

Time to go, discussion is headed to outer space! Enjoy yourselves, the return is payback time!

Hillary is going to win the nomination. She is going to need all of us to support her against the Republicans ... Being told to "get over myself," when from my POV I have a legitimate point, just annoys me. And I suspect I'm not the only one who feels this way.

LynnDee, nobody has scored a knock-out punch yet. Your proclamation that "Hillary is going to win," well, far from being "a legitimate point," remains to be seen. Your claims to prescience just annoy me, and I suspect I'm not the only one who feels this way.

She is going to need all of us to support her against the Republicans ... If you are truly interested in party unity ...

I often get the feeling from the Clinton campaign that people who wonder if maybe she's not the best choice (like me) should just shut up and do what we're told. I get that feeling when Bill Clinton not only lies --- but is self-righteous at the same time. I get that feeling when Hillary uses phrasing like, "some of us haven't thought enough about what we'd do on the first day," as if she's talking to an teenager, not about another thoughtful adult. I constantly get the feeling that the Clinton's feel they've "earned" more time in the White House, as if the presidency is some kind of service award.

I used to argue --- in effect --- that Naderites should shut-up and line up behind Gore, using the calculus of "lesser evils" (although I thought he was a great candidate). But when does enough become enough? I am a lifelong Democrat, a self-proclaimed liberal, and a frequent defender of both Clintons --- and her campaign is making me feel like I understand what feeds the fever swamps on the right. I do endeavor to be polite --- but it is Hillary who is pushing me away from her.

>>>LynnDee, nobody has scored a knock-out punch yet. Your proclamation that "Hillary is going to win," well, far from being "a legitimate point," remains to be seen. Your claims to prescience just annoy me, and I suspect I'm not the only one who feels this way.

Dagome, I'm not a Hillary supporter. The first part of my post was the quote I was responding to. I guess I wasn't clear about marking it.

Obama will win S.C. next week. But super Tuesday is a whole other story. C.A., N.Y., N.J. are all big state with a lot of delegates and Clinton is leading up to double digits in those state. I know who can go by the polls?

LynnDee, I was just saying it's like the 2000 vote. A candidate loses the popular vote and then claims victory. It's a joke. A very tragic joke in 2000. Lets not have a repeat. For Obama to claim a victory in this circumstance is unsettling. That said, I will fully support whoever wins the Dem nomination.

>>> For Obama to claim a victory in this circumstance is unsettling. >> That said, I will fully support whoever wins the Dem nomination.

>>>You just can't stop giving orders, can you?!

Yup - it's my 2nd worst fault, right behind impatience with people I'm trying to help!!!

No LynnDee, I don't denigrate OBAMA supporters. Just look at some of the posts they have here and at Daily Kos.
They do it to themselves.

>>> No LynnDee, I don't denigrate OBAMA supporters. Just look at some of the posts they have here and at Daily Kos.
They do it to themselves.

THE TWO CLINTONS PLAY DIRTY IN NEVADA

THE PRESS WILL NOT COVER IT.

READ HERE:

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/19/162953/644/790/439573

"Change Agent" is really a politician from Chicago. Let the games begin. May the best politician win. Cause folks, we don't need "agents" , saviours or saints, we need politicians.

By the way for all of you who had the disconnect with the MLK/LBJ issue watch this video in the Bill Moyers Journal and get some history. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html The We Shall Overcome video. Probably why a great politician is required. The inspirational Kennedy did not bring us the Civil Rights Act, the politician did.

eorse wrote on January 19, 2008 11:14 PM:

THE TWO CLINTONS PLAY DIRTY IN NEVADA

THE PRESS WILL NOT COVER IT.

READ HERE:

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/19/162953/644/790/439573

I am not sure how this whining helps Obama. By calling the relatively tame stuff that has happened since the Clinton camp decided to go after him "dirty tricks", isn't Obama sending a loud and clear message that he is not ready to take on the 2008 version of Atwater/Rove Smear Machine that you can bet would be booted up in time for business as usual? Twice now when Hillary has won, the Obama camp and their supporters have tried to spin their loss as due to Clinton's "dirty tricks". Hello! Welcome to electoral politics as usual, and say good bye to the "politics of hope"! What do you think the Republicans are going to do in the general election? Come and sit down with Obama and smoke a peace pipe or negotiate a deal that would put "dirty tricks" off-limit? Sheer naivete. Once the Repubs are through with him, not only would Obama go on to lose us the general election, he would also be rudely awakened from his fantastic dream that he has the power to take the partisan mentality out of the GOP and "unite" the country...

Kids at KOS--read a real journalist.
Obama ducks the questions
Suddenly, our open senator is acting like a dissembling pol

April 25, 2007
BY CAROL MARIN cmarin@suntimes.com
Barack Obama tells us he is the messenger of a new kind of politics.
Open. Transparent. Different.

But put the pedal to the metal and ask Illinois' junior senator new and serious questions about his radioactive, federally indicted, former friend Antoin "Tony" Rezko, and suddenly this gleaming presidential hopeful and paragon of new politics behaves just like any other dissembling, dismissive Chicago pol, ducking the discussion while pretending not to.

The story behind the story of this week's Sun-Times' reports on Rezko, the power broker slumlord, and Obama, voice for the voiceless, is revealing.

For five long weeks, Sun-Times' investigative reporter Tim Novak called, e-mailed, requested, practically pleaded with Obama's press people to provide information about the senator's relationship to Rezko when it came to the development of low-income housing in Chicago. In an abundance of fairness and an excess of solicitousness, Novak sent a list of questions.

For five weeks, no answer.

Jointly, on behalf of both the Sun-Times and NBC5 News, Novak and I sent Obama's campaign requests to interview the senator for both print and television.

Again, no answer.

Until Novak began his digging, the most we knew about the Obama/Rezko nexus was the revelation that Rezko, a major Obama donor and fund-raiser, had helped Obama enlarge the property surrounding his South Side mansion by having Mrs. Rezko simultaneously purchase an adjacent lot and then sell off a strip of that property to Obama. At the time, unless Obama never read a paper or watched the news, he couldn't help but know that Rezko was already under federal investigation. Rezko was ultimately indicted.

"It was boneheaded," the senator confessed when questions were raised. And that was that.

But Novak's reports this week raise new questions about just how much attention Obama, a self-described activist, was paying to the critical issue of affordable housing in the district he used to represent as a state senator. It again involved Rezko, his longtime patron, who had 11 failed or failing buildings in Obama's district.

Though Obama says he, himself, did a mere five hours of work, the 12-person law firm where Obama was a junior partner did significant legal work for Rezko's company which, by 2002, was being sued by the city, state and a bunch of banks for defaulting on loans and doing a downright awful job of providing decent housing. Taxpayers and lenders have lost up to $100 million while Rezko's firm made about $7 million.

There is no suggestion that Obama or his firm did anything illegal. But here's a guy who, according to a recent Tribune profile of his wife, Michelle, was so scrupulous about the details of life that he actually went with her on a job interview just to make sure her potential employer was up to snuff. Too bad he didn't give Rezko the same treatment.

Instead, Obama and his minions this week gave us the treatment for having the audacity to inquire.

More than five weeks after receiving Novak's questions, the Obama people at last sent a partial written response. It arrived exactly five hours before the Sun-Times went to press.

That's OK -- any answer is better than none. But what about that interview?

Here's a candidate who these days is on camera more than many TV anchors, whose staff is putting out press releases faster than IHOP cranks out pancakes, and yet, the senator just didn't have time, his staffers claimed, to stop and talk on Monday even though he was in Chicago giving a speech at which, conservatively, there were 30 reporters and 15 cameras.

We didn't know it then, but while Novak and I were staking out the senator's big, black SUV parked outside, he was giving a quiet private interview to the Tribune about the wrongheadedness of the Sun-Times' story.

Meanwhile, an Obama staffer, sent to watch us, nimbly Blackberried our movements to someone inside.

Suddenly, bodyguards pulled the SUV down into a parking garage, grabbed Obama, and with wheels squealing, sped out and away.

Maybe it was the image of that getaway, played on the 5 o'clock news, that finally persuaded Obama to hastily call a news conference to which Novak was not invited but managed to find out about anyway.

Obama said while the new allegations about Rezko were "deeply troubling," none of it had ever been "brought to his attention."

So why all the gymnastics to avoid the conversation?

Especially for a candidate who is "open" and "transparent" and "different"?

Being boneheaded is not a crime.

But if it was, charge Obama with a second count.

duckduckduckduck wrote on January 19, 2008 11:54 PM: Big story in the paper.....

Yikes, Fitzgerald is the prosecutor.

Just did a quick survey of Nevada caucus headlines, and the winner is:

ABC News:
Clinton Tightens Grip with Nevada Win

CBS News:
Clinton Wins Nevada Democratic Caucuses

NBC News:
Clinton, Romney win in Nevada caucuses

CNN:
Big victories for Clinton, Romney and McCain

New York Times:
McCain and Clinton Capture Tough Wins
Vote of Women Propels Clinton in Nevada Caucus

Washington Post:
Women, Latinos Propel Clinton To First Place
Union Support Not Enough

LA Times:
Clinton, Romney score election wins in Nevada

USA Today:
Clinton, Romney win Nev.; Obama claims delegate victory

The MSM has spoken. (Guess maybe the delegate count thing was a little too inside baseball to make a good headline.)

If it is close going into the convention, the important thing will be whether the convention chair decides to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates after all. Who is the chair? Nancy Pelosi.

Speaker Pelosi has already said that this decision rests with the presumptive presidential nominee, not with her. In other words, it will be up to the person getting the nod to decide whether or not to seat the FL and MI delegates.

So... the interesting question is whether those same delegates make a difference. That is to say, imagine that Obama has a majority without MI and FL, but Clinton has a majority with those two states' delegates. Then who is the presumptive nominee? This could prove to be one of the most historic nominating processes in American history at this rate.

Is the posting getting screwed up? It posted only my quote!

So, please follow the above with:

Hillary has won two: N.H. and Nevada. Michigan doesn't count and neither will Florida.

Anonymous (DIE-HARD SUPPORTER OF TWO CLINTONS).

Please clearly (do not leave anything out) describe your candidate, HRC's 35-years of experience. Take today's date and go back exactly 35 years. HINT:

- Failed bar exam after leaving Yale Law.
- Appointed by her husband to AK education commission. The commission had no impact in children education in AK. It remained 50 of 50 in the Union.
- Etc.

Move on to the White House.
- Vince Foster suicide.
- Travelgate.
- AK land/stock gate
- Failed Health care
- Monica
- Marc Rich
- Etc.

Move on to the Senate.
- Got the seat by using WH apparatus and having a stupid opponent (Lazio)
- Bad judgements: vote for war. Vote for credit card company protection, etc.
- Norman Hsu
- Etc.

S. Brennan. The HRC campaign shows why Americans are doing worst in schools. Americans cannot even analytically look at HRC's records. A fool in Iraq would know more about Malliki's failure, than a voter about HRC's records.

We are the laughing stock on this planet.

It gives me no great pleasure to appoint myself the unenviable task of official scold, but I really have to say to my fellow Obama supporters that you are doing our candidate no great favors in with posts like eorse's of 0h48. Sen Clinton is an intelligent and capable public servant of distinguished record. More to the point, she has attracted a number of supporters whose help we will need when our man take the nomination. Now is not the time to burn bridges with such unnecessary nastiness. Our man is better than that, and we should be too.

Alan wrote:

"I know many Obama supporters are new to politics, but you demonstrate an apalling lack of knowledge in how campaigns are run and how elections and the primary process work."

I have to admit, I was naive. Here I thought that Bill C would act like an ex-President first and the spouse of a candidate second. He apparently has little respect for the office.

I was also naive about the Clintons blasting Obama for some misinterpreted comments about Reagan. I mean, Bill C and GHWB are now BFF and GHWB was key member of the Reagan administration.

I'm sorry I was naive enough to think that the Democratic party wouldn't implode because we are just supposed to get behind the candidate of your choice.

I mean, it's enough to make me wonder just exactly what the difference is between the Dems and the GOP. I guess Noam Chomsky was correct after all.

But I'm learning.

--- It gives me no great pleasure to appoint myself the unenviable task of official scold, but I really have to say to my fellow Obama supporters that you are doing our candidate no great favors in with posts like eorse's of 0h48. ---

So why bother? There are whack jobs among both sets of supporters. HRC's are all over the place being highly insulting, and here we have one Obama supporter from la-la land.

I think we'll survive.

Anyone who thinks that HRC has a chance at the GE against anyone but Huckabee will have forgotten about how the Clintons were vilified by the "news" media known as FNC. These guys were almost made irrelevant by their dumb talking points and 8 years of GOP disasters.

But another shot at the Clintons and you will see an energized base. HRC will get the vote out, alright, for the GOP. She will also end up fighting a GOP dominated congress -- right to deadlock.

For all of your wanting a little more thoughtful stuff to chew on, here it is: the single most important issue for the next POTUS will be energy. We are currently past peak oil (even GM admitted it last week) and there are no alternative in sight. Moreover, oil and methane are critical inputs for the ag and pharma industries -- and you can't replace H2 with C in those cases. The delinking of the dollar to oil will send our economy into a deathspiral -- already the Chinese and Europeans are buying up our buildings and infrastructure.

I've yet to hear any candidate (on either side) even frame the issue correctly except for Ron Paul(!) (whom I don't support!) So if Hillary really has all this experience, why isn't she talking about *this*?

Answer: because she promises bread and circuses.

With all her name recognition, she could be elevating the national debate, instead she (and her hubby) debase it with shameless displays of slick campaign techniques. Do other candidates do this? Yes, but Hillary keeps trying to claim the mantle of statewoman, but doesn't want to put in the effort to actually act like one.

"Keep that up and vote for Nader. Remember all the fools who said Bush & Gore were the same?"

I never said Bush and Gore were the same. I am saying that HRC campaign tactics and the GOPs seem to be the same.

I wouldn't vote for Bloomberg in a GE, but if the Dems can't find anyone better to put up HRC (for reasons I explained above), I'm going to vote my pocketbook and go for the GOP.

You see, I'm one of the guys that does believe in fair play. If I voted strictly for my selfish interests, my pocketbook says tax cuts, all the way. Instead, I'm trying to do the right thing.

And sometimes that means blocking dynasties, especially divisive ones.

What great principle governs your behavior? "My party, right or wrong?" You sound more and more like Republican every day with that one....

Anonymous @ 11:34 in reference to the dKos NV post:

I am not sure how this whining helps Obama. By calling the relatively tame stuff that has happened since the Clinton camp decided to go after him "dirty tricks", ...

So, uh, election fraud and voter disenfranchisement are relatively tame stuff? Seriously? What do you have to for it to be non-tame, assassinate somebody?

dcshungu,

I am just repeating your numbers. Clearly in your books this was a huge victory over insurmountable odds for Obama. I will take you at your word on the foolishness part.

Desider,

No-one is saying that the candidates cannot "take it."

All I am saying is that if you think a little voter disenfranchisement and election fraud is par for the course, you are a corrupt degenerate.

oo_P wrote on January 20, 2008 2:06 AM:

Anonymous @ 11:34 in reference to the dKos NV post.

So, uh, election fraud and voter disenfranchisement are relatively tame stuff? Seriously? What do you have to for it to be non-tame, assassinate somebody?

Can you prove any of this? If you can then please do your civic duty and go to the Feds to expose it. Otherwise, you have no credibility. FYI, Kucinich got the courts to approve recount of the NH ballots, and guess what? The official recount tally so far will disappoint you and all the conspiracy theorists out there...You do remember that charges similar to yours were made after Hillary pulled the rabid out of the hat in NH, don't you? I wager that although the NH ballot recount is not going to support a case of fraud, none of the conspiracy theorists would be dissuaded and have the decency to just STFU.

Democrats need African American votes and Bill Clinton going door to door in Sc is not going to make up for the continued pattern of racial remarks.

CNN's Bill Schneider gave an almost textbook version of this line a couple years ago on CNN ...

Judy, how dependent are Democrats on the African-American vote?

Without black voters, the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections would have been virtually tied, just like the 2000 election. Oh no, more Florida recounts!

What would have happened if no blacks had voted in 2000? Six states would have shifted from Al Gore to George W. Bush: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin and Oregon. Bush would have won by 187 electoral votes, instead of five. A Florida recount? Not necessary.

Right now, there are 50 Democrats in the Senate. How many would be there without African-American voters? We checked the state exit polls for the 1996, 1998, and 2000 elections. If no blacks had voted, many Southern Democrats would not have made it to the Senate. Both Max Cleland and Zell Miller needed black votes to win in Georgia. So did Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, Bill Nelson in Florida, John Edwards in North Carolina, and Ernest Hollings in South Carolina.

Black votes were also crucial for Jon Corzine in New Jersey, Debbie Stabenow in Michigan, and Jean Carnahan in Missouri. Washington state and Nevada don't have many black voters, but they were still crucial to the victories of Harry Reid in Nevada and Maria Cantwell in Washington.

Nebraska and Wisconsin don't have many black voters either, but Ben Nelson would have lost Nebraska without them and Russ Feingold would have lost Wisconsin, too, in both cases by less than half-a- percent. Bottom line? Without the African-American vote, the number of Democrats in the Senate would be reduced from 50 to 37.

A hopeless minority. And Jim Jeffords' defection from the GOP would not have meant a thing -- Judy.

Out of a decent respect for the opinions of the Obamaniacs I have now suffered through the koskids plaints.
Sadly there is nothing but the same old wild charges. No evidence, no names, just Wah Wah Wah!
And of course the fact that all this baseless spin is originating with the Obama campaign is doubly disappointing.
Then of course we also get the Obama fans regurgitating the old GOP talking points. Yeah yeah, HRC had Vince Foster murdered because he knew about the Clinton drug smuggling ring! Please!
Do you think that Americans are going to be any better persuaded by that bs this time around?

It is not HRC's fault that Obama is brown, has Hussein as a middle name, has an Islamic heritage, and has been caught up in some sleazy politics.
Nor do the American people need reminding by HRC that these things are true.

Obama can't have it both ways. Just as HRC must deal with voters who support or reject her on the basis of gender, or Bill, so Obama has no right to complain, after actively seeking the black vote, if others oppose him for the same reason.

And really, Obama lost the Nevada vote. Convincingly. So sad, too bad, but his resort to Rovian spinning and Bush games will not change that fact.
Take comfort that Hussein Obama will likely win SC largely because he's black.
Too bad so sad that he'll lose the nomination.

Another sad day for democracy. Lies and distortions repeated ad nauseum by the corporate media allows the liars in chief to prevail in nevada. Will america wake up and stop this nonsense? I hope so. I really don't want another 4 years of the same old, same old.

Michael A wrote on January 20, 2008 8:27 AM:

Another sad day for democracy. Lies and distortions repeated ad nauseum by the corporate media allows the liars in chief to prevail in nevada. Will america wake up and stop this nonsense?

Your disappointment at Obama's second loss in a row notwithstanding, democracy is alive and well in America; it has faced tougher challenges in the past and survived. But, if you can prove that those purported "lies and distortions" are so egregious as to be out of bounds of politics as usual, then you might have 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 how hypocritical Obama is: when the Culinary Workers Union in NV ran ads which were not only false but 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 fom 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 another 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.

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

The aim of democratic institutions is to reflect the will of the people. Anyone who has studied voting theory will know that this is more difficult than it looks. Thus Clinton won the popular vote in Nevada convincingly but nonetheless may end up with one less delegate than her opponent from among the portion of national delegates selected in proportion to the popular vote in accordance with Nevada Democratic Party delegate selection rules.

As with most party rules elected officials who are elected by the voters are given delegate slots. This is particularly reasonable given the low levels of caucus turnout in the past.

In Michigan candidates, according to the rules of the DNC could not campaign but could choose to leave their names on the ballot. Edwards who had to win in Iowa to have a chance took his name off and Obama followed. Both had to personally sign to remove their names. So as a result 327,419 people came out to show their support for Hillary Clinton even though they knew their votes might not be counted. 236,955 came out to vote for uncommitted to show their support for Edwards and Obama. Writing in the name of a particular candidate was not possible because Michigan law requires a candidate to agree to have write in votes counted and Edwards and Obama refused.

Clearly, the democratic thing to do is to recognize how the Democratic voters of Michigan split their votes. To do otherwise may be to award the nomination to the candidate with fewer popular votes.

Tapper wrote:

"It is not HRC's fault that Obama is brown, has Hussein as a middle name, has an Islamic heritage, and has been caught up in some sleazy politics.
Nor do the American people need reminding by HRC that these things are true."

The way you frame this argument discredits your candidate. Who said it was Clinton's "fault" that Obama is Black, and has an ethnic name?

Let me ask you this: Is it Obama's fault that a Clinton surrogate (Bob Kerrey) made repeated statements emphasizing Obama's middle name Hussein? Is it Obama's fault that robocalls were made in Nevada repeatedly using Obama's middle name, then misrepresenting his positions? Is it Obama's fault that clear racist language was used by a Clinton surrogate in NY about "hucking and jiving" Let me also ask, what do you think the Clinton campaign is trying to say when using Obama's full name? Do you think it's an appeal to our better nature or an attempt to align Obama with Saddam Hussein or play on the fears of people regarding the muslim faith? To me, it's self evident.

As a democrat and Obama supporter, I have been completely disgusted by Hillary's campaign. It is clear to me that she will do and say anything to win. There are some on these TPM threads who celebrate this fact and see it as a virtue. I see it as moral bankruptcy. I dearly do not want to see another four years of repuglican rule, but if McCain get's the nomination for the repub's, and Clinton for the dem's, I will vote for McCain. I know where he stands, and he has run a good campaign that hasn't resorted to demeaning or degrading his opponents. I say this with sadness, but with the utmost conviction.