The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Obama, Edwards React to Nevada Outcome


Hillary Rodham Clinton gets a thumbs up on caucus day in Las Vegas. (AP).

By Michael D. Shear
LAS VEGAS -- Hillary Clinton's rivals issued statements Saturday offering her congratulations for her victory but vowing to go on.

Barack Obama said he is "proud" of the campaign he ran in Nevada, calling it "honest" and "uplifiting" and saying that "That's the campaign we'll take to South Carolina and across America in the weeks to come, and that's how we will truly bring about the change this country is hungry for."

But his campaign manger, David Plouffe, said the campaign has reports of more than 200 incidents of "trouble" at caucus sites that may have kept Obama's supporters from offering their support at the caucus. He blamed the incidents on premeditated "Clinton campaign tactics" that he said "were part of an entire week's worth of false,
divisive, attacks designed to mislead caucus-goers and discredit the caucus itself."

Rival John Edwards campaign manager David Bonior, whose candidate finished far behind the two leaders issued a statement thanking the union supporters who backed Edwards "in the face of very difficult circumstances and long odds."

Bonior said: "John Edwards is the underdog in this campaign, facing two $100 million candidates. But that is nothing compared to the real underdogs in our country -- working men and women, middle class families, and all those who have no voice in Washington."

He added that Edwards will continue to compete for the nomination, saying, "The race to the nomination is a marathon and not a sprint, and we're committed to making sure the voices of all the voters in the remaining 47 states are heard."

Posted at 6:32 PM ET on Jan 19, 2008
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: S.C. Conservatives Look for Their Man | Next: Duncan Hunter Leaves GOP Field


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Not to behhove the point but I'm also enclosing an oped piece I think makes the point better than I ever could that the Clinton Campaign's broader patterns cause one to be concerned :

Hillary Clinton's Sleaze Parade
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_paul_rog_080118_hillary_clinton_s_sl.htm

Posted by: rafael.childress | January 20, 2008 1:16 PM

In regards to hotnuke 2007, wow what a great name and it fits too. Clearly, you are incredibly intelligentt and a gifted writer, but one questions your logic, and reasoning generally. Rather than refute your points line by line let me offer the following:

Senator Obama, was not the first to bring up race, Senator Clinton did, as did her husband, and even their allies (i.e. Andrew Young, who said Bill had probably bedded more black women than Barack). Senator Obama is racist? Wow, that's a stretch to say the least.

As a native Texan, now living in Brooklyn, its extremely laughable that you think upstate New York is a bastion of the right wing. Hmm, yeah...okay...

A cursory look at Senator Clinton's support demonstrates a clear corporate bent. I'm an entrepreneur, and all for business, but not at the expense of the working class.Mark Penn, her campaign manager is CEO of Burson-Marsteller, who's clientS include Novartis and Merck. Do you think he would back a candidate who would push against the pharmaceutical industry?

Mr Penn: http://www.cgsnet.org/Portals/0/pdf/mtg_PennBio.pdf

As A New Yorker, Senator Clinton lost my support by pandering to the religious right when she introduced a bill to outlaw flag burning. see the following:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121401887.html

On the Iraq war, she states that she was up to date on all the information but she never read the NIE report, which clearly showed a lack of unanimity on the part of the intelligence community as to whether Irag had a nuclear weapons program, or whether there was a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. She even voted against the Levin amendment that would have required the president to return to Congress post UN. In speaking to Tim Russert, she said she voted in that way because she didn't want to cede American power to the UN-which is extremely absurd, if not pathetic.

Please see:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/14/hillary-clinton-defends-her-2002-iraq-war-vote-through-attack/

If you watch Meet the Press today you will see that Hillary Clinton herself lauded Reagan to a New Hampshire newspaper and is quoted in Tom Brokaw's book as saying positive things about Reagan. Furthermore, Bill in 2002 was quoted as saying the Democrats were the party of no ideas... Can anyone say hypocrits?

Jon Meacham, on the show also states that Hillary Clinton would serve to unite the Republican party. I have no doubt that its true.

SHE IS NOT ELECTABLE IN THE GENERAL PRIMARY. I PROMISE YOU THAT, AND SHE WILL CAUSE DEMOCRATS DOWN THE TICKET TO LOSE IN MANY STATES. I WISH THAT WEREN'T THE CASE BUT IT IS

Posted by: rafael.childress | January 20, 2008 12:21 PM

Following are some of the talking points of the Obama campaign and its supporters on these and many other blogs regarding Hillary Clinton along with my responses to them. Every single one of these bullet points could have, and actually HAVE, come straight from the Repuglikkkunt Playbook. These are EXACTLY the kind of things Repuglikkkunts have been saying about her for years. And it's beyond shameful that the Obama campaign, and especially its supporters, have taken a page from that playbook and used it in this election; it's DESPICABLE:

HILLARY AND BILL CLINTON ARE CLOSET RACISTS WHO DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT MINORITIES, BUT ARE JUST USING THEM TO GAIN POWER.

This almost isn't worth dignifying with a response. It has been suggested by none other than Michelle Obama in remarks she made about Bill Clinton's speech in which he said Barack Obama's claim that he has been steadfast and consistent in his level of opposition to the war in Iraq is a "Fairy Tale". She, and Obama, both knew this is exactly what Bill was saying, and rather than going after him on the issue, they spouted spurious charges that Bill Clinton was claiming Barack's entire campaign, and therefore the idea of a black man running for president itself, were a Fairy Tale. They furthermore issued a Memo listing this misrepresentation of Bill's comments as proof of a pattern of racial divisiveness being played by the Clintons. One of Obama's senior advisors, Jesse Jackson, Jr., also delved into this racial hucksterism, when he claimed after the New Hampshire Primary that Hillary's "tears" needed to be analyzed in light of the fact she hadn't cried at the plight of Hurricane Katrina victims. First, how this knuckledragger could possibly know whether she EVER cried regarding the plight of those victims is beyond me. Perhaps he has access to an illegal wiretap Bush has on the Clinton's, who knows. Regardless, his statements are clearly intended to send the message that Kanye West had about Bush; Hillary just doesn't care about Black People. Such an accusation is beyond despicable. This was echoed in Dr. Michael Eric Dyson's comments right after the NH Primary (Dyson, while not a paid staffer for the Obama campaign, is one of his senior surrogates making all the rounds of the MSM attacking Hillary), where he basically accused every Hillary Clinton voter in New Hampshire of being racist. The ONLY racists I see between the two candidates and their supporters are on the Obama side.

HILLARY IS THE STATUS QUO, NOT SOMEONE WHO WILL BRING ABOUT CHANGE.

Hillary Clinton the Status Quo? Spouting this nonsense is PRECISELY why Obama hasn't gained any traction with women. Women know FUNDAMENTALLY that this statement is absurd. They realize that ANY woman is an agent of change, a HUGE agent of change in a political world dominated by men and their testosterone-driven agendas. Add to that the fact that Hillary has been a PASSIONATE advocate for progressive political ideology, fighting AGAINST the growing corporate control of our government and FOR the interests of ordinary Americans for DECADES, and it boggles the mind that someone can actually level such a charge with a straight face. The fact Obama does it shows me he's a first-class actor. He deserves an Oscar...lol

HILLARY CLINTON IS A BOUGHT AND PAID FOR CORPORATE HACK WHO COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT THE WELFARE OF ORDINARY AMERICANS.

Hillary's a bought and paid for corporate hack? Yeah, sure...lol Can you POSSIBLY really believe that? Yes, she's taken money in donations from corporations. So what. She's ALSO proven to be a stalwart fighter against their holding more influence in our government than they should. She's fought against the lobbyists tooth and nail. Just because she's intelligent enough to realize that in our current political system she needs money to run a campaign, and will accept LEGAL donations from any corporation as long as they don't expect any quid pro quo doesn't mean she's a corporate hack. It just means she's a very intelligent woman who knows how to win. And this is not to say she's going to try and destroy corporations if she's elected either. She understands they are a part of our nation. She just also understands that they have to bear their fair share of the burdens of our nation, and she will work with them to find a way for them to do so that's agreeable to all without compromising the principles of FIRST PROTECTING AMERICA. To me, the only people who make such claims about Hillary are either just those who hate her guts, or ignorant morons.


HILLARY IS TOO DIVISIVE, AND THEREFORE LESS ELECTABLE IN THE GENERAL ELECTION THAN OBAMA, OR IN FACT UNELECTABLE.

Hillary Clinton, while being PORTRAYED as divisive by the Right-Wing controlled media, who almost to a head HATE Hillary Clinton's guts, is anything but. Her 7 years in the Senate have proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt. She has garnered support from a large portion of upstate New York that is a bastion of the Right-Wing. She's done this by doing what she has done best throughout her life, working for EVERYONE. She may be a Democratic Senator from New York, but as the people in upstate New York realized soon after she was elected, she cares about ALL New Yorkers. This is why she won her second term in the Senate with such huge support statewide.

IF HILLARY IS ELECTED, THE RIGHT-WING REPUBLICANS, AS THEY DID IN THE 90'S WITH HER HUSBAND BILL, WILL BLOCK NEARLY EVERY EFFORT HILLARY MAKES AT PROGRESS.

If Hillary's elected the Right-Wing's going to attack her like they did Bill and tie her hands? Exactly how are they going to do this? They've attacked the Clinton's for decades and failed MISERABLY to gain any traction with their smears. Despite all their vile, hateful efforts, the Clintons, and especially Hillary, were found innocent in the White Water investigation of ANY WRONG-DOING. Despite their level best, their pathetic efforts to impeach President Clinton got them nothing but egg on their face and Bill a 65% approval rating upon leaving office, the highest for a president leaving office since WWII. Bill, since his infidelities of those years, has been a model husband, so I can't see where the sex scandals will come from. Everything about their past has been investigated to death, so that'll gain no traction whatsoever. Are you morons really suggesting Hillary's going to have a tryst with an intern? Face reality, if Hillary's elected, especially with a Democrat congress that should be even stronger (5-7 more Democratic Senators, and possibly 20+ more in the House of Representatives), how in the heck do you see the Repuglikkunts stopping her from getting her policy agenda passed?...lol

The simple fact is, if Hillary Clinton is elected, she is going to bring our troops home as soon as possible in an orderly and effective and safe manner, and END THE WAR IN IRAQ.

The simple fact is, if Hillary Clinton is elected, she is going to return our nation to a course of fiscal responsibility that will, by the end of her two terms, have us well on the way to being out of debt. She will turn record deficits into record surpluses, and guarantee the financial stability of our nation for the next generation. She will create millions upon millions of new jobs, strengthening our economy and thereby our security, by demanding we seek out innovative ways to maintain jobs here in America through new technologies.

The simple fact is, if Hillary Clinton is elected, she WILL secure our borders while not ingratiating herself to hateful, bigoted scum bent on painting undocumented migrant workers as EVIL, ILLEGAL ALIEN CRIMINALS. She will develop and implement a comprehensive immigration reform policy that will make us both safer and stronger, while giving those workers a REAL opportunity at the American dream, allowing them to come out from the shadows of our society where they've been abused by greedy corporations and others who want their labor, but see them as nothing more than animals.

The simple fact is, if Hillary Clinton is elected, she is going to go a long way to repairing our damaged image in the world, is going to work with leaders worldwide to garner far greater support in changing this world for the better than anyone before her, including her husband, and will make this nation safer. This will be done by getting other nations, especially those needed, to address the GREATEST THREAT TO OUR NATION AND THE WORLD, GLOBAL WARMING.

The simple fact is, if Hillary Clinton is elected, we will finally see energy policies that reflect sound science and logical thinking. We will see the greening of our nation, which will be a benefit on so many levels it boggles the mind. Our security will be far greater as we reduce our dependence on foreign, especially Middle Eastern oil, and our environment will be protected.

The simple fact is, if Hillary Clinton is elected, we will FINALLY have Comprehensive Universal Healthcare (including medical, dental, and mental health) for every American. This, in and of itself, along with my belief she will find ways to reduce our healthcare costs in this nation so that this doesn't become an unfounded entitlement in the future, will assure America a prominence in the world it hasn't had in the last 50 years.

The simple fact is, if Hillary Clinton is elected, she will be, in my opinion, and I think the history books will agree with me in fifty years or so, THE GREATEST PRESIDENT THIS NATION HAS EVER SEEN.

Now, Obama can jump on this bandwagon, and hope it carries him to inauguration as president in January of 2017, or he and his supporters can continue to spout this nonsense, especially the accusations that Bill and Hillary are racists, and they'll watch themselves go down in the toilet bowl of political oblivion. It's up to them.

Personally, no matter what Obama does at this point, I will NEVER vote for the man. To me, he isn't fit to be president. Perhaps he'll prove me wrong on that, but I doubt it.

Posted by: hotnuke2007 | January 20, 2008 9:12 AM

I'm from Europa and i work as political adviser.
Seriously, Hillary ?
Do Dems want to lose again in 2008 ? (and so in 2012)
Look the numbers !! Hillary has no chance against any Republican candidate, she's too "splitting". If Hillary is the nominee, Republicans will be united to defeat her. Besides, if it's Hillary, it opens the door for a Bloomberg candidacy (and that's not a good thing when you look at the numbers).
Your only chance to win is to put Obama on track and stand behind him. Against Obama, the Republican side will be divided. If it's McCain, Adventist won't vote. If it's Huckabee,Centrist will be on Obama's side.
Hillary is yout ticket to defeat. Everybody knows that, even Hillary. Look who supports Hillary: big companies (some with foreign influences)whose usually support Republicans. Once Hillary nominees, they will support their candidate : the Republican one.

Posted by: nicknateize | January 20, 2008 5:47 AM

The ENTIRE controversy over race was engineered and manufactured by the Obama campaign in order to fuel a win in South Carolina. Obama had seen the writing on the wall, namely that if he didn't win in South Carolina, a state whose Democratic Primary voters were composed of nearly 50% African Americans, he would be seen as nothing more than a boutique candidate on the order of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. He understandably realized that Hillary was garnering the majority of black support, despite the fact he himself was black, and felt if he was going to have ANY chance at being nominated, he had to win South Carolina. His staff then decided they were going to play the race card, and did so. They sent their surrogates out immediately following the New Hampshire primary, including Professor Michael Eric Dyson, who began questioning whether the win by Hillary in New Hampshire was NOT because she had swayed voters in that state based on their belief that she was a more experienced, more qualified, and more genuine candidate, but rather that they, the voters, had simply voted for her and not Obama because he was black.

This charge of RACISM, leveled at the New Hampshire voters who supported Hillary was a veiled attempt at painting ALL of Hillary Clinton's supporters (at least the white ones), in fact ALL Democrats who DIDN'T support Obama, as RACISTS. They then manufactured a controversy over Hillary's statement about MLK, which was ONLY made in response to OBAMA'S likening HIMSELF to MLK and JFK, claiming she had "DISSED" the man. Nothing could be further from the truth, but the media, nearly all of whom hate Hillary to the core, picked up on this in a heartbeat, and were defacto Obama surrogates in their effort to paint Hillary Clinton as, AT BEST, someone who wasn't sympathetic to blacks concerns or sensibilities.

The Obama campaign then went on to use Bill Clinton's words, where he OBVIOUSLY criticized Obama for his claim that he had been ADAMANTLY opposed to the Iraq War CONSISTENTLY TO THE SAME DEGREE, since before it started, and tried to paint those remarks as racist as well by misquoting Bill, twisting his words, and taking them completely out of context to suggest Bill Clinton had suggested Obama's ENTIRE campaign (and thereby the entire notion that a Black man could ever be president) was a "Fairy Tale". The TRUTH, though, is that Bill had said, CLEARLY AND CONCISELY, that Obama's claim that he had been consistent on his views about the war was a "Fairly Tale". Now, some could argue this is an unfair criticism of Obama, and that would have been a valid, if incorrect opinion in my view. However, they didn't do this. Instead, they clipped the speech by Bill to include NONE of the context of what he had said, and simply used the words "Give me a break, this whole thing is a Fairy Tale" as their quote from Bill, and then claimed he had said this in the context of saying Obama's entire campaign, his entire dream of becoming president, was a "Fairy Tale". This was done in order to anger blacks, to incite them to believe Bill Clinton was a closet racist. And it worked beautifully. Obama's lame claim that he had nothing to do with it was EASILY refuted by the MEMO that had been released by HIS CAMPAIGN which noted Bill's remarks, and did EXACTLY what I stated above in trying to claim Bill had made the claim Obama's campaign was a "Fairy Tale."

Now, I know that many blacks who are racist (and trust me, there are just as many racist blacks as there are whites proportionally), and many other blacks who aren't, but are no more interested in delving into the details of the campaigns as the majority of Americans, will be swayed by all of this nonsense that has been fueled by the Obama campaign and their defacto surrogates (the entire Hillary-Hating media). But they better remember one thing. WHITES MAKE UP THE MAJORITY OF THIS NATION, AND EVEN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Obama may find he's won the battle (South Carolina), and lost the war.

And if his and his surrogate's rhetoric goes much further, he may find himself in political oblivion soon. I don't believe he ever would have won the nomination. I'm a Hillary Clinton supporter and fervently believe she will win. However, I had hoped for, in fact have called for it for over two years, that she would choose Obama as her running mate. However, if he himself, his surrogates, or his advocates hope for even that, he had better REALLY begin to tamp all this down. Because if he doesn't, he's going to find his support among whites even lower than Hillary Clinton's support among blacks in South Carolina following his little round of racial hucksterism. And if he wants to see who would REALLY win a race war between a black and white candidate here in America, all he has to do is look at the campaigns of ANY black man who's ever run for president. His only chance at the nomination, or ANY further political viability, is to UNITE people, not divide them.

Furthermore, for two years I have been calling for a Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama ticket, which I saw as both a winning ticket, one that would go far in healing our nation, and would provide Democrats with control of the White House for at LEAST the next 16 years. I am a Hillary Clinton supporter, but I have to say that whatever my analysis above, and my belief that Obama can STILL avoid doom if he stops what he's been doing, I personally will NEVER vote for the man. I believe he is a racist, that the majority of his supporters are vicious Hillary-Haters and/or moronic racists themselves, and if Hillary does put him on the ticket in order to heal the party, I will seriously consider voting for an independent candidate or skipping the election altogether. Barack Obama is not fit to be president.

Posted by: hotnuke2007 | January 20, 2008 4:09 AM

It has become clear that the Clintons are willing to divide and destroy the Democratic party in order to get into the White House. The Democratic party is seeing that Clinons' ugly tactics are working against the party- in New Hampshire the party is in serious disarray after Clinton misinformation on Obama split the party, and Dems will most likely now lose their congressional seats.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/18/trying_to_heal_a_rift_in_new_h_1.html
Top dems including Kennedy have called Bill Clinton on his outrageous attacks on Obama.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/96385
The Clinton tactics now threaten to destroy the hopes of the party and lose young people, dissaffected Republicans and independents they have a good chance of gaining with Obama. Expect to see more Top Dems, including perhaps Kennedy, come out against Clinton as they realize these two are about nothing more than their own huge egos and are willing to go to any length in ugliness, nastiness and even illegality in order to establish themselves in the White House.

Posted by: katharinestavrinou | January 20, 2008 3:33 AM

White feminist for Obama, checking in! :) For the record, if Hillary wins the nomination, I will still vote for Obama in the general election, as a write-in candidate. Although I didn't start out this primary season despising Hillary, I do now, both on the basis of her reprehensible campaign tactics, and on the abuse of gender to further her own ambitions. Below are some of my thoughts on why Clinton is the anti-feminist candidate:

- In NH, Hillary's distortion of Obama's record on abortion - widely understood as a hot-button issue for many women - used and manipulated women on the basis of their gendered interests and needs. In my view, this alone should be grounds for 'feminist' organizations to rescind their endorsements of Clinton. This was an overtly sexist act, disempowering women and abusing women's trust on the basis of sex/gender. It is a reprehensible outrage.

- The Clinton campaign has backed the lawsuit in Nevada that seeks to disenfranchise those who work non-standard shifts in Las Vegas's 24 hour economy. Renowned research by Harriet Presser, among others, has shown that women are disproportionately negatively affected by shift-work, particularly women who share the dual roles of worker and caregiver. Further, women who are employed in jobs requiring shift work are typically lower income. If Hillary is the feminist's candidate, why would she seek to disenfranchise shift workers?

- Hillary has been running on her husband's coattails, suggesting that her presidency will a) bring back the prosperity of the Bill Clinton years, and b) that we'll get both Hillary AND Bill if we elect her. A feminist stands on her own merits, not invoking those of her husband.

- Similarly, Hillary claims her 8 years in the White House as on-the-job training, which I find anti-feminist to the core - she is saying that because of who her husband is, she is better prepared to run the Presidency. Again, a feminist stands on her own merits, and does not use her husband's record of employment to bolster her own credentials.

- During her infamous display of emotion in NH, Hillary's speedy leap from being choked up to her sound bites about "some are right and some are wrong" and being "ready on day one" suggests to me that it was a staged appeal to women. I think that using inauthentic displays of emotion to manipulate people is abhorrent. Further, women have historically been accused by men of using their tears to get their way. Hillary's choking up as a prelude to her sound bites struck me as highly inauthentic and as simply adding fuel to the pernicious sexist stereotype that women use emotion inauthentically to manipulate people.

Thanks for letting me share my frustration here - Hillary really roils my guts these days.

Posted by: drama_king | January 20, 2008 2:58 AM

My husband and I are white and in our 50's. We are Obama supporters and will not under in circumstances vote for HRC if she winds up the nominee. In fact, if she winds up the nominee she will tear the Democratic party apart. The Clintons have no new ideas. They are committed only to having and retaining power.

Ex-President Clinton disgraced his office. Now he is disgracing himself running around threatening reporters, insulting Obama. Contrast his behavior with that of the senior Bush when his son was running. ExPresidents draw a hefty salary from the U.S. government and are supposed to stay above partisan politics. What demeaning behavior! One can only understand it by listening to an interview wherein this egoist describes how he misses the trappings of the Presidency: Oh poor Bill, no more "Hail to the Chief," no more rides on the neat jet!


Posted by: ThomasJC1 | January 19, 2008 11:41 PM

I just want to remind the Obama & Hillary supporters that everytime you say that Edwards should drop out you tick off a lot of Edwards' supporters. That's not a very good thing to do if you are trying to get our votes. Your time would be better spent talking about your own candidate instead of saying bad things about ours.

Edwards has every right to be in this contest and as Americans we have every right to support him. And contrary to what you may think we don't owe your candidate a thing. They have not won our vote and you will just have to deal with it.

Today was not a good day for our candidate but most of us are far from ready to throw in the towel and you can partially thank the unfair media coverage for that. The media has enraged so many of us by their bias in this election that as long as Edwards is in this race we will support him. And in case you haven't noticed yet John Edwards is a fighter and so are most of his supporters.

Posted by: pmorlan1 | January 19, 2008 10:24 PM

You indicate that Plouffe has suggested some 200 incidents of voting irregularities. Should I take him at his word or will the Washington Post do some investigative journalism so that we'll actually be informed citizens?

Posted by: jjohnson_capr | January 19, 2008 9:45 PM

Most of Hilary's vote are from the uneducated dummies and some selfish sexist women. Obame is doing very well amongst the under 50s of all gender and educated people.

Dummies support Hilary and smarter people support Obama.

The election has proven that they are more dummies than smart people in Nevada and New Hampshire.

Obama/Biden 08

Posted by: JonB1 | January 19, 2008 9:43 PM

I want to appeal to all the elderly people not to sell our future by supporting the Clintons and their dirty tactics.

It is time for change.

Go Obama.

Posted by: JonB1 | January 19, 2008 9:35 PM

Edwards, Obama and Clinton all spoke in Reno Nevada on Wednesday and Friday. I saw all three speak for over an hour and answer questions. Edwards sincere, Obama warm, funny and brilliant , Hillary came across bureaucratic and she never smiled once in a one hour plus speech.

The vote was today. Edwards only got 5% of the Nevada vote, shouldn't he drop out? Obama got 45% and Hillary 50%.

The big surprise was at polling locations this morning, Saturday, there was a huge Republican turnout about double the number of Democrats who showed up for the Democrat caucus.

Posted by: msmithnv | January 19, 2008 8:37 PM

tothebank, I wish more of the senior voters in NV were like you! I hope you'll encourage all your friends and neighbors in California to vote for Obama.

Clinton will have to win by a Very large margin in the states with the largest delegates to go into the Convention the clear winner. I am hoping this will not happen.

As long as Obama can stay within a 5 percentage points of Clinton the race will be determined at the Convention. According to the DNC: "Most (around four-fifths) of the delegates will be "pledged" to candidates based on their state's voting in the primary, so the nominee could be known in advance. However, there are complicating factors, such as delegates that have not pledged their allegiance to a candidate, as well as rules governing how delegate votes are allocated when candidates drop out of the race. Once a candidate locks up a majority of the delegates, he or she can receive the party nomination" Since Obama and Clinton are thus far almost tied in delegate votes based on the caucus and primaries, the "Superdelegate" votes and who Edwards will give his delegate votes to will be the deciding factor.

Posted by: Nevadaandy | January 19, 2008 8:36 PM

I am an independent taking a serious look at both Obama and Hillary. The nastiness, the empty accusations, and the plainly moronic comments by those who appear to be Obama supporters in reaction to his losses in New Hampshire and in Nevada today have been a major turn off. Their reaction makes me wonder about their candidate, who's supposedly preaching a message of hope and unity. I am thoroughly disgusted and will now support Hillary in the California primary.

Posted by: brianylee2003 | January 19, 2008 8:34 PM

Senator Clinton's scorched earth campaign strategy borrowed from Rove and company has so entirely alienated me, that if she is the nominee of the Democratic party, I will not vote for her. Furthermore former President Clinton has lost my respect too.

Playing the race card as she has done, and distorting Senator Obama's comments and record generally are winning her votes, but she is tearing up the party. There is no way she will win the general election, as she is viewed negatively by Independents and Republicans who will come out en masse to vote against her. And now many African Americans and "Bobby Kennedy" Democrats like me will refuse to support her as well.

Can anybody say, four more years of Republican rule? In 2012, perhaps we'll finally be ready for the type of authentic and real change Senator Obama represents

Posted by: rafael.childress | January 19, 2008 8:30 PM

IM4Impeachmen- thank's for the feedback and your analysis is correct. anyone 40 and younger are going to be left holding the bag in a few years. yet, the behemoth, leviathan, baby-boomer generation ( who has stewarded the country to this crossroads ) refuse to think for themselves and lead or have the decency to get out of the way. 4 consecutive presidents from 2 immediate families. this would not happen in any other progressive first-world nation, that fact that it could happen in america is stupefying. on the bright side nbc is reporting obama received 13 delegated and clinton 12 so this is as draw and not a victory for clinton.

Posted by: jacade | January 19, 2008 8:17 PM

I am woman, 51 and am sending in my California Absentee Ballot on Tuesday and am voting for Obama!

Posted by: wca56 | January 19, 2008 8:17 PM

I'd like to ask the women that are voting for Clinton in NH, NV and elsewhere if they really believe that 28 years of two family rule is a good thing for a democracy because that is what we risk if the Democrats make Hillary their nominee.

Personally, I'm opposed to the notion of two family rule for that long. Hillary would have to be incredibly fantastic for me to overlook the risk of two family rule for 28 years.

But, she's not incredibly fantastic. At best she's mediocre.

I'd also like to know if women believe it's right to vote for Hillary just because she is a woman? Isn't that as sexist as voting against her because she is a woman, or voting for a man because he is a man?

I'd also like to ask pro-Clinton women if this is really the woman you want to be the first female president of the US? If Hillary weren't the wife of a former president would she be this far? I'd much prefer to see someone make it on their own -- like a McCaskill or Napolitano or Collins.

So yes, how about a reality check people?

Posted by: wappinne | January 19, 2008 8:13 PM

I sure hope you folks follow up on this story: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/19/162953/644/790/439573

If even half of it is true, there was some very dirty pool being played on Clinton's behalf at the Nevada caucus.

The country deserves to have this fully disclosed - not just on blogs.

Posted by: GordonsGirl | January 19, 2008 8:11 PM

Hillary Clinton won 50% of the votes and that seems to be her ceiling. The Clinton campaign should be deeply concerned with the degree of alienation of Obama supporters. The nastiness of the Clinton campaign and then playing the part of victim, the disinformation, the spin, the hardball tactics. Bill and Hillary seem to think the third term is owed to them and anyone in their way should be held for contempt of their inevitable right. We are getting to know this couple in a way we never knew them before. The 50% of the country that never liked them to begin with is not going to vote for them in November. Now there are a large percent of Democrat Obama supporters who will not vote for them in November either. Today's was a Phyrric victory for the Clintons. Many former supporters in the 1990's are now coming to detest them. As for John Edwards, if Bonior's remarks become reality and he insists on continuing after South Carolina, he is nothing more than the Ralph Nader of 2008.

Posted by: TedFord1 | January 19, 2008 8:09 PM

Go Romney to Victory in 2008.

Posted by: garys916 | January 19, 2008 8:05 PM

The Clinton Attack Dogs and the Clintonistas do not care whose throats they cut or whose backs they walk on as they will win at any cost. She has supporters no doubt but almost 50% of the voters hate her and recognize her as a power hungry individual. The United States cannot afford her and thats a fact.

Posted by: garys916 | January 19, 2008 8:01 PM

There has been much talk from the Obama campaign about how Nevada isn't such a important loss. They focus on how they came back from a big lead that Clinton held in Nevada and the fact the he will get 12 or 13 delegates out of Nevada (different media outlets have reported different delegate counts).

It is strange to listen to the media and the Obama campaign speak about how the Nevada election was always Clinton's to loose. They site Clinton's lead from polls taken last fall when everyone assumed that her nomination was inevitable. However, after Clinton's loss to Obama in Iowa and the Culinary Union endorsement of Obama, the media, the Obama campaign, and the Clinton campaign believed that Obama had the advantage in Nevada. This change was evident in the Nevada polls that came out after New Hampshire where Obama held a small lead.

Regarding the delegate count, the Obama campaign wants to focus on the close to even split of delegates out of Nevada, but Clinton has held a delegate lead from the start and continues to hold the lead by some 53 delegates.

This is a loss for Obama in a state were he thought he could win and campaigned vigorously for the victory. And a win for Clinton in a state where no one (Obama, Clinton, Edwards, the media) was sure who would win.

Either way you look at it, Obama is loosing to Clinton.

Posted by: brian_wood | January 19, 2008 7:55 PM

From California;
I am white and 67 years old and I support B Obama. Seniors recognize that he is the change agent.

Posted by: tothebank | January 19, 2008 7:48 PM

Are we really surprised about these tricks the Clinton's are pulling?

They've been in the drivers seat of the country for 8 years, went through 2 presidential elections before this and have some deep, entrenched connections and interests all over the country.

Hillary has been craving the presidency since Bill took office. It's why she stayed visible as first lady, it's why she ran for senate in a state she never even knew or lived in, and it's why she'll stop at NOTHING and let NOBODY get in her way until the U.S. Monarchy is sealed and delivered on 01.20.09

Go Obama.

Posted by: marc.choquette | January 19, 2008 7:47 PM

Apparently Obama won more delegates than Clinton. So who really won?
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=272881

Posted by: dailykos1 | January 19, 2008 7:32 PM

Go Hillary!

Posted by: susanbour | January 19, 2008 7:32 PM

Go Hillary!

Posted by: susanbour | January 19, 2008 7:32 PM

I attended the Nevada caucuses today. In fact, I was selected as an Obama delegate to the County Democratic Meeting next month, which will select delegates to the Nevada State Convention and finally to the National Convention in August.

The turnout was heavy. The lines were clearly drawn: when you looked over at the Clinton supporters, they were largely senior citizens and women. The were led by old-line Democratic party functionaries, who controlled the caucus. The Obama supporters were largely Black and younger, and their "leader" came from out of State.

The Obama supporters clearly were politically naive. The Clinton supporters were clearly "organized."

If real change is to come to America, it is up to young people, in particular, to turn out in big numbers in other primaries.

Posted by: IM4Impeachment | January 19, 2008 7:32 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company