As usual Obama and his camp are ridiculous and ingenuous. Hillary won the Nevada caucas and Obama (as Edwards did) should be congratulating her and saying on to South Carolina. I am tired of his old style politics that deceive. Everything he says is a manipulation...just shows that he is all rhetoric and no action. What a disaster he would be as president!!!!

If the reporting is to be fair AP says Senator Clinton won 13 delegates.
I don't know who is right, but it shows just how desperate the Obama camp is to make lemonade out of lemon.

As a Hillary supporter, I'l take 51-45 from here on in.

Wow, that just reminds me who won an election like this. Yes, you guessed it right, George W. Bush over Gore. I am not sure Obama wants to go down this road. He should graciously accept defeat as he did in NH. The nomination is not lost, not by any chance, but he will not do himself if he goes down this road.

Greg:

There's a bit of disconnect. Your headline says that Obama Campaign: We Won Nevada Caucus... But then there's this sentence at the end:

Obama adviser Plouffe was asked whether this means that Obama won the Nevada Caucus. Plouffe's response: "Well, honestly, we'll leave that to you guys."

So which is it?

You know, this makes sense, in light of what I heard Harry Reid say on AAR about an hour ago. Reid said that Hillary won Clark county (Las Vegas), but that Obama did well across the entire state.

Down what road? All he's saying is that he actually came out ahead in total delegates alloted in the caucus. Similar argument Clinton supporters made after Iowa, when she was only a couple delegates down, and as any Clinton insider loves to mention, has the lead amid superdelegates who have no responsibility to abide by any democratic process at all. You're stretching big time RC, but it's kinda humorous.

It wouldn't surprise me if Obama won the delegate count. I'm not sure of the breakdown, but I would think that for this to occur, Mrs. Clinton's support might have been overwhelming in one or two select urban locales (Vegas?), while Sen. Obama's support throughour the state might be more consistent, percentage-wise.

Caucuses aren't primaries, and as such, they can be somewhat peculiar in the way delegates are allotted to candidates. Our caucuses in Hawaii give inordinate weight to the neighbor islands, accounting for nearly 40% of the state's delegates, even though the island of Oahu accounts for 80% of Hawaii's population.

For example, Dennis Kucinich had nearly half our state's 2004 delegation to the national convention, even though he received less than 40% of the overall vote, simply because he won the Maui, Kona and Ka'u district caucuses decisively -- keeping John Kerry below the 15% threshold in key precincts of those locales -- and thus got all their delegates.

Yes! One delegate can matter! It ain't over until it is over!!!!!!!

This is... very interesting but I would want to be careful about whether it's exactly right. As of this moment, CNN is reporting 12 delegates for each of Clinton and Obama.

First off, are we sure the AP story can be trusted? I.E. is this actually corroboration of the Obama conference call, or did the AP reporter just listen in on and report based on the Obama conference call?

Second off, how can CNN be concluding 12 delegates for each candidate while the Obama campaign concludes 12 for one 13 for the other? Does Nevada have 24 or 25 delegates?

Let's not forget that the 51-45 percentages are for the percentage of state delegates.

People seem to be confusing them for the percentage of the popular vote.

So all we know now is that Hillary won the state delegates and Obama won the more important national delegates.

There has been no popular vote count. In Iowa, one was never provided. I'm not sure how it works in Nevada, but we may never get it either.

The Obama camp may want to tone down the gloating with respect to losing the popular vote but winning more delegates.

It's a little too reminiscent of Bush 2000 for comfort.

The Obama campaign would be better off accepting the extra delegate - if they get it - quietly, graciously, and moving on without too much fuss.

So let's see, now that Obama has clearly lost, and by a very real margin, what is the closest possible stand-in for a genuine popular vote, suddenly what's important is something else, the national delegate count?

What happened to all those terribly screechy wailing sounds they and TPM made about "suppressing the vote of the people"? Somehow, in the end, that vote means shit to them?

The media hype around obama, and the daley machine he and michelle sprang from will be used by republicans in the fall campaign. Obama should drop out of the race--and hope he hasn't harmed edwards' campaign-if he does so, he'll have a chance to clean up the rez stuff--although it may be too risky to have him on the ticket. He might be indicted before November--read todays' sun times. He wasn't smart about whom he took money from. Unfortunate--he can probably weather this and be the candidate in 8 years.

Forget all that.

The must important result to watch:

Is Ron Paul going for a back-to-back victories against Giuliani?

Its interesting to see how Obama's support changes when everyone realizes that he is exactly like all other politicians, that when the chips are down he will distort and spin in any way he can.

This is the nature of the politician, just like a business will always screw its employees to make more money, politicians will screw each other to grab for power. The trick is to invest in the ones who also give you power. Do not ask "Who is less dirty?" ask "Who is more likely to get me what I want, by any means?"

Apparently there were some interesting happenings in the caucuses. At least according to this diary:

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

I wonder if this story will check out or if it's just sour grapes.

Obama lost me after being snide to Hillary after Iowa and before NH. I am not just referring to his "likeable enough" comment, but pics of his look of distaste for her as well. From the beginning, he has physically presented himself in what I think is a contrived pose to look "presidential." I think he is a big phony--he reminds me of Bush and I think his presidency would be disaster. Obama will not be able to hold revival meetings from the Oval office to keep Americans juiced up. He will have to manage and read papers.

I just don't like him, and I don't trust him.

JGabriel,

The Obama camp may want to tone down the gloating with respect to losing the popular vote but winning more delegates.

It does not seem to me that the Obama camp itself is gloating. The conference call was not about this particular matter but the results altogether. Plouffe did point out that Obama "won" the delegate count. The "winning Nevada" is a reporter's question/spin so it should not be attributed to the campaign although Plouffe clearly did not protest it much.

Mind you, it does not prevent all kinds of idiots here and elsewhere gloating (to my shared distaste.)

I would much prefer to have direct preference voting but this is what we have and under the rules, Obama has the edge from this contest.

Are you kidding me? This gives Obama supporters something to celebrate and guess what---we didn't cheat to do it. We didn't have Michelle Obama showing up at caucus locations, we didn't have robocalls going out and discrediting HRC. How can people still support the Clinton's when they constantly use shameful tactics to win by any means necessary? Why are so many people putting Barack down for being a decent person? Does real change make you nervous or something?

Remember the Daleys? That's where BO and MO come from. WAKE THE HECK UP!
EDWARDS IS HONEST! HE'S GOT OUT INTERESTS AT HEART. All the others are in it for themselves.

Let me repeat this point since many don't seem to have gotten it:

HILLARY DID NOT WIN THE POPULAR VOTE

She received the highest percentage of state delegates. That has nothing to do with the popular vote, which has not been released and may never be.

If Obama won the NV delegate count, he should have at least let the State Dem Party in on how he arrived at that conclusion. From a report in the New York Times:

Mr. Obama said that he received more national delegates in Nevada than Mrs. Clinton because of his strong performance across the state, “including rural areas where Democrats have traditionally struggled.”

But some election officials said they were confused about Mr. Obama’s claim that he more delegates than Mrs. Clinton.

“I don’t know why they’re saying that,” said Jill Derby, president of the Nevada State Democratic Party, referring to the Obama campaign. “We don’t select our national delegates the way they’re saying. We won’t select national delegates for a few more months.”

He wants the title to king of america--remember he comes from kings of kenya. Look at the policies, not the rock star stuff! Look at his funders. Then look at Edwards. Clean as a whistle. And Edwards has middle class and poor people at heart. Imagine Edwards grandma taking a break from the mill and miraculously flying to Hawaii (pretty expensive place to live, kiddies) and asking Obama's grandmama for a LOAN---she was a BANKER!
Obama's pat of the wealthy uber class! wakeup!

Are TPM and Josh Marshall in any way embarrassed that they protested so mightily and with such high moral outrage about how the Culinary Workers were going to be denied the right to vote via the lawsuit, only to see the Obama camp treat that whole idea like yesterday's kleenex when they lost the popular vote?

Well, I couldn't be silly enough to imagine that they might actually rummage up any such sentiment. But isn't it pretty to think that they might?

She received the highest percentage of state delegates. That has nothing to do with the popular vote, which has not been released and may never be.

Yes, but everybody understands that the percentage of state delegates is the closest stand-in for the popular vote. And who disputes that, beforehand, that is what people supposedly cared about?

@frankly0

The popular vote totals haven't be releaesd yet. For all we know Obama won the popular vote. All we know is that HRC got 5% more delegates to the state convention but that because of the way the state distributes its delegates to the national convention he gets one more national convention delegate.

Neither candidate definitely won the popular vote.

Obama has been comparing himself to Reagan maybe he can now compare himself to Bush. They both lost the popular vote.

Actually,no national delegates were elected today... instead the vote totals reflect delegates to the county conventions, which will be followed by a state convention - those delegates will decide who wins the Congressional district and the state -wide delegate.

That process will play out over the coming 2 months -- in that time, it will matter where the 4% Edwards delegates go (since he won't meet the 15% threshold) and how the division works within the individual CDs, as well as how many delegates actually show up for their meetings.

With the returns this close, the final math is impossible to work out right now with any definiteness... but it is unlikely that either Clinton or Obama will win the control the pledged delegates by more than 1 or 2 delegates.

G C,

Look, by any reasonable reckoning, it is the number of state delegates that most closely matches what is the presumed popular vote -- most certainly it is NOT the number of national delegates. As I said, beforehand, everyone accepted that fact.

If the Obama campaign wants now to pretend that it's the national delegates that counts, not the state delegates, it's nothing but the sheerest hypocrisy, given their loud howls about the sanctity of the vote in the wake of the suit against the Culinary Workers Union.

And of course TPM joins them in that hypocrisy if it doesn't point out the little anomaly there.

The clintons will do anything to win. .
Bill is a wild cannon and makes a mockery of the title of ex-president. The Republicans will happily win come November if Billary is the candidate.

FYI - The only multimillionaires in this race are Edwards and Clinton. The only family that is REMOTELY like you and I are the Obamas.

If Obama gains an extra delegate (which CNN now reports will instead be 14 and 14), it doesn't mean much except to emphasize how much the caucus was rigged so that even with less than a popular win, he could gain an extra delegate.

But, in the end it does not matter. He lost, even with the caucus rigged in his favor by the union. I'm not sure who started the +5% extra he'd gain from the casino-based caucuses but it really says something about how weak his campaign is that even with this edge he couldn't pull out a win.

And the extremely hostile comments on the blogs between about respective candidates, especially about Hillary, is very unfortunate. Whatever wishes folks have, the online community doesn't appear to match the voters at large. Likely, in my opinion, Hillary will go on to win the nomination, but there are still 47 states to make their selection so it is still to be proven.

I think Obama hurt himself this week, very badly. He put Reagan of Clinton, which, in my opinion, is like a third-rail issue among middle-age and older voters. Then, he got caught up in the rigged culinary union casino caucuses, which he lost, both credibility and by vote. Third, he shared that he is not a COO and is disorganized. No one wants another Bush, nor someone not ready to be president from day one. He's been hurt as well by all of his 'present' votes and his church affiliate with Farrahkan. Finally, as he pushed race among minorities he overwhelmingly lost the Hispanic vote. Overall, I can't imagine a worse week for him.

Looking into the next weeks, he may win SC but this will be race-based, which has limited value and, in my opinion, will marginalize him further after his failure in Nevada.

While I have been a regular reader on the TPM sites, I have only recently ventured any posts. The low quality of a lot of the posts--name calling, foul language, almost violent hatreds expressed, sometimes campaign-like statements instead of thoughtful analysis very discrediting to the otherwise well-thought and intentioned Web sites. While I am only a reader of the TPM Web sites, if I might offer to other readers, however enthusiastic you might be for or against a candidate or topic, please give some thought to writing much in the manner you might carry on a conversation with friends and family. Respect is mutually appreciated and allows all opinions, however welcomed or unwelcomed, to be given the respect and credence they deserve. It also makes the site more credible to new readers who might otherwise discount the comments posted or, worse, the site itself.

Yes, an idiot of elephanTINE proportions.

A lie this is wrong, again.
Go Clinton!!!!

denial.......

Julie,

Obama lost you on *one* remark?

Guess, what? In the words of your friend Hillary: "There are lots of other candidates to vote for"

Sigh. We all know this isn't a personality contest (otherwise even the Hillary supporters know HRC wouldn't have a chance), but why do silly comments on like this come up?

How about looking at how they campaign, comparing track records, and taking a broader view.

One remark from Obama compared to the dozens of distortions from Bill C? Are you really giving Obama that kind of power? Or are you looking to justify your preconceived notion?

This country will deserve what it gets the way people are rationalizing their pre-conceived views. My high school had more substantive elections than this!

In my small precinct 116 people fit into the high school classroom were my daughter had geometry last year. Obama won the count, 64-52, but the way they calculated the delegates they got three each. Edwards didn't get over the 15%.

It was great being there.

Julie- Obama lost you when he said Hillary was "likeable enough"? Had you been following events during the last month, you would know that Clinton surrogates had been dropping not so subtle insinuations about his possible cocaine dealing as a teen and his years in a "secular madrassa". Yes, the Clinton campaign has been playing race and ethnic cards against him in a slimy and vicious way. He was a gentleman to say HRC was likeable enough after all that: she didn't even have the courage to slime him herself! I'm beginning to think Karl Rove learned everything he needed to know about filthy politics from Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Julie: "I am not just referring to [Sen. Obama's] 'likeable enough' comment, but pics of his look of distaste for her as well."

In all honesty, I don't see Barack Obama in that light, and I don't see any any look of distaste on his face for Mrs. Clinton. His facial characteristics, i.e., high cheekbones, are such that his physical facade appears forever serious and perhaps even imposing, but really, he can't fight that aspect of his own genetic make-up.

That being said, your observation about his facial expression is not necessarily an uncommon one. One woman in Chicago e-mailed me that she didn't vote for Obama in the 2000 congressional primary because she thought that -- and this is a quote -- "he had this queer look on his face, kind of like the person standing next to him just farted."

As I said, I don't think that's really reflective of who the man really is. But it wouldn't hurt for Obama to show some more emotion on the campaign trail, and crack a smile every now and then.

I had commented here a couple weeks ago about how, on the night of his historic win in Iowa, Sen. Obama had read an already-prepared victory speech from a teleprompter, rather than just go "Wow!", speak spontaneously from his own heart, and revel in the moment with his supporters. In that regard, he reminds me an awful lot of Michael Dukakis, that somehow showing a modicum of emotion or passion is in itself a sign of personal weakness.

In short, I think he needs to let his guard down a little, and begin to connect with his audience on a more personal level, rather than merely an academic or esoteric one.

So Obama comes from a 25 point deficit in polls to beat Bill and Hillary by 5 points..that's the real story..he came within 5 points despite red faced Bill on a daily tirade against him for the past 2 weeks, Hillary sending emails to NH voters about his pro choice position

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/18/trying_to_heal_a_rift_in_new_h_1.html

She and Bill deserve censure, not a vote by any Dem..

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 be 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.

Mr. Obama said that he received more national delegates in Nevada than Mrs. Clinton .... But some election officials said they were confused about Mr. Obama’s claim that he more delegates than Mrs. Clinton.
“I don’t know why they're saying that,” said Jill Derby, president of the Nevada State Democratic Party, “We don’t select our national delegates the way they’re saying. We won’t select national delegates for a few more months."

I'm sitting in an internet cafe in Beijing, and from this distance Obama looks every bit the *jackass* he does at home.

Go Hillary!

ONE HERE!

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

Still cracking up over this post in kos:

Hillary Clinton is the Tonya Harding of politics.

Ha ha ha...so true.

Nevada is like the nation, the cities may vote for Hillary, but nobody outside of the city will vote for her.

How does that mesh with the argument that Hillary can win the general election in November?

It is time for all these gender biased women who support Hillary to decide whether they want a Democrat in the White House, or Hillary as the Democratic Party candidate. They will not get both. Hillary is a loser in November.

isnt it time for obama to concede build up a record in the senate then run for president in 2016

calling people obscenities is not a way to begin an argument. Certainly everyone realizes what's been at stake. Hard to imagine it getting much worse. But with hil and obama taking dirty money from the people who screwed everything up...why can't those of us backing people like kucinish and edwards complain about them. Stop scare-mongering.

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.

>>>> Used car salesman, Obama at it again

More delightful talk from the HRC corner. I had no idea what a charming group you were!

>>> I cant believe the dem turnout numbers

I heard 100,000 people turned out. Possibly you're looking at the state delegate numbers?

I think this really, in many respects, is a victory for Obama. For most of a year, and just as recent as three weeks ago, Obama was down roughly 20 points in Nevada. Hillary had the Democratic establishment in Nevada, and several unions behind her. Moreover, she had the titular head of the democratic party (Bill Clinton), the so-called "elder statesman" actively campaigning for her. And yet Obama only loses by about 6 points, and may have actually won the delegates. This is quite impressive, considering the odds.

Moreover, the Obama campaign has been head's and shoulder's above the Clinton campaign in integrity. You didn't see Obama attempt to suppress the vote, initiate robo-calls distorting Hillary's record, send out fliers misrepresenting Hillary's policy positions, etc. It was a clean campaign. Something to be proud of.

The real losers, in my view, are Bill and Hillary Clinton. Does anyone else find Bill's role in this campaign troubling? I mean, is there any precedent in presidential history where a former sitting President is actively campaigning against members of his party in support of one particular candidate? Does conflict of interest mean anything to him? Let's say Hillary get's the nomination, does anyone think our party will be stronger than before the process began? It strikes me as a scorched earth policy where Hillary may win the battle but lose the war.

Finally, did anyone notice who won in SC? John McCain. What happens if he gets the nomination for the republicans? Do you think Hillary's vaunted "experience", the seven sacred years in the Senate as junior senator from New York will be comparable to the biography of a man who is a decorated war hero, former POW, and successful senator with a wealth of legislative victories under his belt? Obama wouldn't be much of a match either, but I do think he has more cross over appeal than McCain. Hillary will get the democratic base, but in a match up with McCain, the independents will swing his way. Just a few things to think about.

A lot of people are confused by "popular vote" percentages. This was a caucus, not a primary -- i.e. there are rules about "viability" that require voters to throw votes to second and third choices.

I was extremely disappointed by the Hillary campaign's tactics at the Nevada caucus this morning. As a former Clinton supporter, I will now throw my support behind Obama even more because of the marked difference in tone between the two campaigns. All of the Obama supporters and campaigners were full time volunteers, who wanted to make the caucus fair, without pressuring undecideds, but simply trying to engage people in discussion. The Clinton campaigners were all paid, from out of state, and were extremely aggressive and mean, strategizing and pushing people around during the entire caucus.

If tone weren't enough to turn people's votes, all should know that if Hillary wins, there will be a republican in the white house... four. more. years.

ingenuous

I don't think this word means what you think it means, Jenny. Try, try again.

According to the head of the NV democratic party, the Obama campaign doesn't know what the hell they are talking about. Delegates are not selected in NV until April 19. And it appears Obama showed his true sore loser colors in his "concession" speech. A sad character indeed.

the clintons have steep so low in this election, i respect obama for runing a strategic campaign.

FROM 'HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT WEBSITE' - PRESS RELEASE 12/12/07

"...She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks..."

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674

GO OBAMA!

YES WE CAN

Anne