The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Using Delegate Math, Obama Pushes Back Against Clinton Win


Barack Obama may not have won the popular vote, but he won one more delegate in Nevada than Clinton. (Reuters).

Updated 11:14 p.m.
By Shailagh Murray
LAS VEGAS -- At the end of the day, the Nevada Democratic caucus looked as though it would turn out like a kids' soccer game, with everybody a winner.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the declared winner of the Nevada caucuses. But Sen. Barack Obama's campaign says he walked away with one more delegate than Clinton.

Not so fast, says the Nevada Democratic Party. " Just like in Iowa, what were awarded today were delegates to the County Convention, of which Senator Clinton won the majority," said Jill Derby, chairwoman of the Nevada Democrats. "No national convention delegates were awarded."

On a conference call, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe called the campaign's claimed national delegate win significant because it pointed to Obama's support across the state, from Elko to Reno to sprawling Las Vegas, along with the rural counties in between. He called it "a demonstration of what a strong general election candidate [Obama] will be."

Obama was able to edge out Clinton, Obama aides told reporters, because two rural regions, sub-areas of one of Nevada's three congressional districts, apportioned an odd number of delegates, and Obama won the balance of them, taking away a total of three delegates to Clinton's one. In more populated areas, especially Las Vegas, the districts apportioned an even number of delegates. But Obama was able to come in a close enough second to Clinton to evenly split those delegates.

Plouffe refused to say whether the delegate outcome cast doubt on Clinton's claim of victory. "This is a very close contest and we obviously both did a good job at turning out voters," he said. But, he added, "I do think that increasingly this is going to turn into a contest of delegates, and I think that's an important measure."

David Axelrod, another senior adviser, was less equivocal. "We're not treating this as a loss," he said. "We'll keep letting them spin the victories, and we'll keep taking the delegates."

Posted at 8:08 PM ET on Jan 19, 2008
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Clinton Addresses Supporters in Las Vegas | Next: A Tale of Two Electorates


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.



lawrence_32713 30 apr 2008
obama is really grasping for votes. i now see him wearing a marine tee shirt. oh? when was he in the marines? deceiving the public like that is cruel. hillary will take an advantage of this i'm sure. one thing is very sure...my florida vote has to count. i am given the right to having a vote by the constitution. and that's the truth. leb

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2008 2:05 AM

btno whnqej jhmckw uvwx onmtuchd dcrpsyt pnlxhzy [URL]http://www.siulrmbcp.pzcrwx.com[/URL] mewx zatrojxl

Posted by: Anonymous | April 16, 2008 11:47 AM

btno whnqej jhmckw uvwx onmtuchd dcrpsyt pnlxhzy [URL]http://www.siulrmbcp.pzcrwx.com[/URL] mewx zatrojxl

Posted by: Anonymous | April 16, 2008 11:47 AM

btno whnqej jhmckw uvwx onmtuchd dcrpsyt pnlxhzy [URL]http://www.siulrmbcp.pzcrwx.com[/URL] mewx zatrojxl

Posted by: Anonymous | April 16, 2008 11:45 AM

btno whnqej jhmckw uvwx onmtuchd dcrpsyt pnlxhzy [URL]http://www.siulrmbcp.pzcrwx.com[/URL] mewx zatrojxl

Posted by: Anonymous | April 16, 2008 11:45 AM

fzimjh douk dxje huksgcpl eqtaxzd pejblno hnjftp [URL=http://www.ognc.paukco.com]eurbgiz wshuneb[/URL]

Posted by: Anonymous | April 16, 2008 11:43 AM

fzimjh douk dxje huksgcpl eqtaxzd pejblno hnjftp [URL=http://www.ognc.paukco.com]eurbgiz wshuneb[/URL]

Posted by: Anonymous | April 16, 2008 11:42 AM

fzimjh douk dxje huksgcpl eqtaxzd pejblno hnjftp [URL=http://www.ognc.paukco.com]eurbgiz wshuneb[/URL]

Posted by: Anonymous | April 16, 2008 11:41 AM

vikxsayd xgviaedf jcznv zdsphxmlq jvkduxoq qtjgdns jrmoswa

Posted by: Anonymous | April 16, 2008 11:35 AM

vikxsayd xgviaedf jcznv zdsphxmlq jvkduxoq qtjgdns jrmoswa

Posted by: Anonymous | April 16, 2008 11:34 AM

Run, Obama, run. The nation has a need for you to run and God has a demand for you to run. I love the message, method and I've learned as a result to love the messenger moreso than in the beginning. Run with all your might. Run morning, noon and night. Run Obama, run. Love with all your heart and and decide you alone can do your part to make America what it ought to be. Run Obama, run. Mr. Editor have your way with this. Thanks a million, Joseph Rucker/Terry, La.

Posted by: jjrlovesu | February 10, 2008 8:20 PM

JayKay2, you say that Obama didn't play the race card, and as your evidence, you state that the race issue fed off what Hillary Clinton said about MLK. Tell me, moron, when did Hillary say this? Go google it, dufus. You'll find it was AFTER both Michael Eric Dyson (an advocate of Obama) stated RIGHT AFTER the New Hampshire primary that Hillary won because the New Hampshire Hillary voters didn't want to vote for a black man. THAT IS PLAYING THE RACE CARD, YOU FUKKING MORON. Also, Jesse Jackson, Jr. (a SENIOR OBAMA ADVISOR) came on MSNBC right after the primary also and said THREE TIMES, "We have to analyze her (Hillary's) 'tears' in light of the fact she never cried about Katrina". This was a direct implication that Hillary didn't care about the Hurricane Katrina victims (the majority of which were black), and is equivalent to him saying, as Kanye West did about Bush, "Hillary just doesn't care about black people." This was Obama's campaign PLAYING THE FUKKING RACE CARD.

The fact that scum like you ignore this FACT shows me you're not interested in reality, but simply in defending at ANY COST a lying, racist piece of dung.

Posted by: hotnuke2007 | January 21, 2008 5:39 PM

Not going to put much effort into this - cos this is already like years ago in the media, but:

Akchonan: As per Jade_7243 corroboration, my 'clarification' statement from the Nevada Caucus site was correct - you posted the earlier statement - keep up please.

Further - Obama did not play the race card - the race issue fed off what Clinton said about MLK - quite independent of Obama. Obama found it baffling for this point: he's a Senator - therefore a lawmaker, he's also running for President - also a role for a lawmaker, and he is good at organizing grassroots movements. So the point of Clinton making the distinction between MLK and Johnston, in this instance, was moot - unless she is so far in denial that Obama is actually a running mate.

I don't fancy someone leading the free world who can't take responsibility for their own actions - can you? Some wanted to make it about race - but even Obama didn't see it as about race and said as much - so stop trying to falsely push this impression.

Hotnuke:

I can't believe in your post that you rant on about Obama being racist and then in the next breath say that Hillary is not the status quo because she is a woman, absent of testosterone. Now who is being a bigot here? We need to transcend both race and gender politics and choose the best candidate - and I'm a woman okay?

These are the reasons why Hillary is the status quo:

1/ She does take campaign funding 'the old way', which you dismiss with so what. Edwards and Obama bothered to try a new way - that demonstrates more about changing the status quo than promising to change it.

2/ We all know that Hillary was an active part of her husband's presidency - the Clinton's were a team. They have found a loophole to get past the 2 term limit and get back - as a team - into the White House. Considering the 4 year terms of the last 16 years it has been: Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush. Now you guys are fighting to make it Clinton again?

This is getting ridiculous and like setting up two royal families who pass the rulership between them. Do you really think you will see much change if you go down this path?

Also, what about all of those kids in school in America that are taught that they could one day be President? Should you amend that to say 'only if your last name is Clinton or Bush'?

Reality check: 9/11 happened shortly after Bush came in and was agitating under the Clinton years. Electing the Clinton's back in is not going to do anything significant to improve the worldwide views of America - rather give the impression that you're all stuck in a rut of your own making.

Posted by: JayKay2 | January 21, 2008 7:51 AM

To lopwise:

You're rather ignorant, aren't you. First, NONE of the national delegates have been appointed from Nevada. This is nothing more than an UNOFFICIAL count done by the AP using their wacked out system of tabulation. The FACT is, those delegates can be appointed, ALL OF THEM, to either of the candidates who were viable when the convention comes. Considering Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, she'll likely end up with more delegates. Also, no one trumpeted Hillary Clinton as the second-place finisher in Iowa, especially not the Clinton campaign, despite the fact the AP had again said she had one more delegate than Edwards.

The fact you use this backward logic shows me you're nothing but a bozo. The fact you support a lying, racist piece of shiite like Obama shows me you're a fool.

Posted by: hotnuke2007 | January 20, 2008 8:33 PM

The president of the United States of America is elected by the electoral college, not the popular vote. The Democratic National Convention's Nominee is nominated by the total delegates one has at the convention. Because of the way the President is elected, history has shown that a person can win the popular vote and still loose the election for the President, case in point Al Gore 2000 beat Bush by almost a million popular votes, but lost the presidential election 271 to 266. Clinton came in third in Iowa but ended up with one more delegate than John Edwards in the state of Iowa. When that happened no one complained or try to justify it. Yet when the same thing happens in Nevada to Senator Obama favor, everyone wants to say it is not so. There appears to be a double or triple standard here. If Gore can lose an election, although he won the popular vote, if Clinton can come in second in Iowa although she lost the popular vote, why can't Obama be considered the winner in Nevada, although he did not win the popular vote?
I don't care what spin the Nevada Democratic Party Chairperson wants to put on the delegate issue, at least two news organization have declared that Obama got 13 delegates to the National Convention and Clinton got 12. I hope Nevada doesn't turn out to be a Florida 2000. Therefore, put Nevada in Obama's corner and give it a rest.

Posted by: lopwise | January 20, 2008 8:09 PM

I'm an enthusiastic Obama supporter. I've also been a lifelong Democrat, and because of that I was until recently prepared to put aside partisan differences and support Hillary if she manages to win the Democratic nomination. But after watching the slimy tactics that the Clinton camp has been using to gain the nomination at any cost, at this point I can see myself voting for McCain this fall if it comes down to a Clinton-McCain contest. The Clintons have behaved in a corrupt and amoral manner. No one whose operatives think this kind of behavior is acceptable should be anywhere near the White House:

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

Any Clinton supporter who can read the above account of Nevada voter manipulation and still think she's deserving of the noimination has totally abandoned any sense of what it is to be a Democrat.

Posted by: whatmeregister | January 20, 2008 4:08 PM

I've never voted for a Republican in my life, but if HRC wins the nomination there is no way that she gets my vote.

She and Bill don't care about the Democratic Party and the don't care about the country. All they care about is themselves.

I may not vote for McCain, but I will consider it. If he can convince me that he cares more about the country than himself, I might just go his way.

Posted by: choskasoft | January 20, 2008 1:07 PM

Can someone please tell me: 'why is Bill Clinton and Hilary so nasty people'.

It is so unfair that the former president is using his position to lie and steal this nomination.

l am completely tune off from their campaign tactics and l wish people will call them out for their lies.

They will stop at nothing to win.

Posted by: nkgilb | January 20, 2008 1:02 PM

SUNDAY MORNING: The Nevada Democratic Party issued yet another clarification, which says that AP's reporting is correct (Obama wins more delegates) but avoids coming right out and saying so specifically. Remember that the Nevada machine is controlled by Sen. Harry Reid (officially "neutral") and Reid's son, Rory (a Clinton supporter).

Unless there is some knee-capping and arm-twisting and other threats of bodily harm, Obama should come away with 13 national delegates to Clinton's 12, and Edwards gets none.

The Right Decision in '08? BARACK OBAMA!

Posted by: jade_7243 | January 20, 2008 12:01 PM

Whatever you guy Obamaniac say,the momemtum
shifted. Read it here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080120/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_dems_analysis

One more thing I can tell you. The super delegates will vote for the candidate won the popular vote.
Obama is likekable but many of his suporter are nasty.

Posted by: henryvu | January 20, 2008 10:12 AM

JayKay2 & Johnk,

Clinton's 55 delegate lead comes from the delegates she won in the primaries and caucuses so far and from the super delegates that have pledged to support her. The lead also takes into account the delegates won by Obama and the super delegates that have pledged to support him.

Obama may be able to out pace Clinton in future super delegate commitments, but future super delegate pledges will depend greatly on who does well in the future primaries.

Obama will most likely win in South Carolina and Clinton will most likely win the Florida beauty contest.

Though Obama may do very well on Super Tuesday, the way many of these primaries are set up only registered Democrats can vote in the Democratic primary. This is the case in California, New York & New Jersey for example. Many of these states have a large Hispanic population and obviously a large number of women. So if the voting trends continue (Obama having an advantage among men, African Americans, independents and Republicans - Clinton having an advantage among women, Hispanics and registered Democrats) the odds are in Clinton's favor to expand her delegate lead over Obama coming out of Super Tuesday.

Posted by: brian_wood | January 20, 2008 9:22 AM

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 9:14 AM

Fellow Democrats... Be smart... Hillary has NO CHANCE to carry a national election against ANY republican. WE would be wasting another golden opportunity by submitting another WEAK national candidate to the rest of the country to vote for. I Anyone fooling themselves into thinking Hillary is "electable" in any way shape or form when the national election rolls around, is just straight not paying attention. God help us if McCain wins the GOP nomination. He will steam roll over Hillary before we know what hit us.

Posted by: anhouck | January 20, 2008 8:30 AM

The total delegate count to date is shown either with or without "superdelegates". Superdelegates are indiviudals who have pre-pledged their support for one candidate. Hillary has more committed super-delegates than Obama. (Note: Many made their decision when Hillary was thought to be inevitble and they can change their minds by convention time however.). But if you just look at numbers of delegates won during the voting process in the first 3 contests, Obama leads 38-36. But these numbers are also not static. In some states, like NV, the state delegates can change their preference before the official selection.

Posted by: zbob99 | January 20, 2008 8:00 AM

Are journalists writing these stories or idiotic misinformed media hacks? GET THE FACTS FIRST BEFORE YOU REPORT - PLEASE GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE YOU POST MISINFORMATION!!
NEVADA HAS NOT ASSIGNED NATIONAL DELEGATES! HILLARY CLINTON WON THE NEVADA CAUCUS!!!
THE OFFICIAL statements from Nevada are:

**OFFICIAL Statement by Nevada Democratic Party Chair Jill Derby: (Las Vegas, NV) "The Nevada Democratic Party and its officials have taken great effort to maintain our neutrality in the presidential campaign and the integrity of our process. Just like in Iowa, what was awarded today were delegates to the County Convention, of which Senator Clinton won the majority. No national convention delegates were awarded. We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support."

Las Vegas Sun latest report:
Clinton's win over Barack Obama in Nevada gives her much-needed momentum going into next Saturday's South Carolina Democratic primary, where Obama was seen as having an advantage because of that state's large African-American population.

Her victory today included a stunning showing at the nine controversial at-large sites on the Las Vegas Strip -- where she won seven of those precincts.

However, during the late afternoon, the Culinary-backed Obama campaign tried to throw some cold water on Clinton's victory.

Using arcane caucus math and a formula that figured in Obama's results in rural Nevada, his camp insisted that Obama actually won Nevada by taking 13 of the Silver State's 25 national delegates. However, party leaders put out a statement saying Obama's camp was flat wrong.

As one smart blogger noted today, "In the face of tough situations and defeat, it is disappointing to watch Obama's behavior contradict his rhetorics for positive change. He has been dismissive of Clinton while uplifting of Reagan. That instigates division among democrats. He was quick to acknowledge a black man's contribution to civil rights and totally unrecognizing of other white men's contribution and even spanned racist sentiment against Hillary for equalizing the contributions of MLK with Johnson's. That instigates division among Americans. When he lost in Nevada he lost his grace and whined, even suggesting the others did not run a clean campaign. His campaign even gave misleading statements about the delegate-winning process. If he's not ready, he's not ready. It's tougher in national elections. He cannot be whining and accusatory all the time. If he thinks being ordinarily candid about questions like "what's your weakness" is good, he's being naive. His answer is not wrong but it's not the kind that will come prudent and respectable in the world stage and even presidential league. No president can be perfect but America cannot go from one extreme (GWBush) to another extreme (BHObama). The experienced person can fail and there is greater probability that an inexperienced person would fail. Obama is running for the presidency now, not because he is called for a vision, but because he is compelled by a favourable condition. His candidacy is not about hope. His hope is about his candidacy. "

As for Obama's aides and the latest misinformation from the Obama campaign ... keep spinning, we are not listening...you are an Obomination to the democratic process AND your candidate...

Posted by: akchonan | January 20, 2008 6:41 AM

Once more Dirty Tactics from the Clinton Camp, wild allegations from Bill, he needs to look a little closer to home at himself especially where Truth is concerned. Hilary is treating this campaign and election nomination with contempt, she is nothing less than an actress who wants Power and is not concerned how she gets it.

America needs CHANGE & HOPE we need to be UNITED on BARACK OBAMA can deliver that.

Posted by: jaybs1 | January 20, 2008 6:29 AM

PS. Not that it matters, because each got 12 delegates from New Hampshire - but Obama was the overall winner by number of counties there - he got 5, Clinton 4, 1 was tied.

Also, I think you'll find that Clinton got most of her endorsements prior to the Primary race, when she was still assumed to be a sure thing.

Posted by: JayKay2 | January 20, 2008 3:58 AM

Amazing that I haven't seen one person in the media comment about this story to say that Bill Clinton's comments directly prior to the caucus (that were lampooned and ridiculed by every media host from CNN, MSNBC, and FAUX NEWS) that the caucus had been rigged to make Obama's votes count far more than Hillary's were spot on the money. BILL WAS RIGHT. And it's a travesty of justice if Obama walks away from that caucus with more national delegates than Hillary. Hopefully, as the story points out, these are COUNTY delegates they're talking about, and not the national delegates. This is just another example why caucuses themselves are farces in terms of democracy. They are completely opposed to the democratic process of one man, one vote, and should be tossed out. PRIMARIES, where EVERYONE GETS TO VOTE OVER A 12-14 HOUR PERIOD OF A DAY are the ONLY forms of real democracy in the primary season.

Also, the fact Obama's campaign is trumpeting his "Victory" in gaining more national delegates (which if you believe the DNC of Nevada, is a complete falsehood to begin with) shows he's not interested in democracy, but ONLY in winning.

This, combined with his campaign's blatant racial hucksterism, playing the race card and painting the Clinton's as bigots and racists, while trying desperately to convince everyone the Obama campaign had nothing to do with it (see the Memo at HuffingtonPost and Michelle Obama's comments to know what a complete lie this was) has convinced me Barack Obama is nothing more than a racist himself, and isn't fit to be president. I've been calling for a Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama ticket for two years now, but I wouldn't vote for this racial huckster if my life depended on it. If Hillary does decide to put him on the ticket to try and heal the party, I might consider voting for a Repuglikkkunt or simply skipping the whole election.

Posted by: hotnuke2007 | January 20, 2008 3:47 AM

"And the end was the most disgusting.

In our last final moments Americans proudly supported one treason as more noble than the other."
SearingTruth


A Future of the Brave - www.searingtruth.com

Posted by: SearingTruth | January 20, 2008 2:06 AM

**Clarification** of Statement by Nevada Democratic Party Chair Jill Derby

(Las Vegas, NV) "The Nevada Democratic Party and its officials have taken great effort to maintain our neutrality in the presidential campaign and the integrity of our process. Today, two out of three Nevadans who caucused chose a Democrat instead of a Republican for president. That is an overwhelming majority vote for a new direction. Just like in Iowa, what was awarded today were delegates to the County Convention, of which Senator Clinton won the majority. No national convention delegates were awarded. That said, if the delegate preferences remain unchanged between now and April 2008, the calculations of national convention delegates being circulated by the Associated Press are correct. We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support."

What this 'impartially says' is that Clinton won in the county delegates but Obama won in the National Convention delegates. Now given they are so 'impartial', why couldn't they mention him by name?

Posted by: JayKay2 | January 20, 2008 1:35 AM

"I agree with many of the arguments being made on the subject of Obama's comments about the Regan and Clinton administrations. Regan did lead the country to change at a time when the country was disillusioned with the prior administration. Whether or not the Regan era is known for it's political justice the Clinton administration does not have a particularly clean record. The Clinton administration carried out many policies the aided the Republican's hold on American Politics today. The Clinton administration is responsible for dismantling the welfare system for the poor and leaving the welfare system for the rich intact. This lead to President Bush expanding the the welfare system for the rich. It was the Clinton administration that signed into law the Defense of Marriage act. It was during the Clinton administration that the military's politics of de-emphasizing sexual misconduct by male soldiers against female soldiers came full circle. All adminstrations have their problems and mistakes.

As A side note, I want to talk about CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY. If you do not like the message of a candidate do not vote for him or her, but realize that civic responsibility goes beyond voting. The message of a candidate while seeking office does not represent what they will do in office. It is our job to ensure that these persons that we elect represent us. Yes, Knowing a persons voting record, speeches and actions are important but what is more important is how we act to get them to correct the mistakes they make in representing us. Mere voting is no longer enough."
Posted by: bluflame1225 | January 19, 2008 02:03 PM

Well my goodness fellow Americans. The excuses for Obama's admiration of Reagan and "The party of ideas" Republicans just gets scarier and scarier.

I'm sorry bluflame1225, but your post was so disturbing that I feel it's important for our nation that a few of its more salient points be analyzed. This is nothing personal fellow citizen. You are most likely a well meaning American, but I believe you have been woefully misled, and your rational escapes me.

So here it goes.


"I agree with many of the arguments being made on the subject of Obama's comments about the Regan and Clinton administrations. Regan did lead the country to change at a time when the country was disillusioned with the prior administration. ..."
Posted by: bluflame1225 | January 19, 2008 02:03 PM


So did Adolph Hitler. Your argument is non sequitur.
ST


"Whether or not the Regan era is known for it's political justice the Clinton administration does not have a particularly clean record. ..."
Posted by: bluflame1225 | January 19, 2008 02:03 PM


What? You completely discount the crimes against our Constitution committed by Reagan, and the fact that he started us on the road to tyranny we now travel, and then simply launch an attack on Bill Clinton? Who has nothing to do with this debate? Just like the right wing does?

Yikes!!!
ST


"... The message of a candidate while seeking office does not represent what they will do in office. It is our job to ensure that these persons that we elect represent us. ..."
Posted by: bluflame1225 | January 19, 2008 02:03 PM


OK, now here is where you completely lost me. Honestly.

How can we fulfill our job to ensure that the people we elect represent us, if as you state in the immediately previous statement that "The message of a candidate while seeking office does not represent what they will do in office"?

Now fellow citizen, that is a truly frightening statement, especially when it is emoted so casually.

To say that a candidate should say whatever it takes to get elected, and then do something completely different once they are, goes against all our founding fathers stood for.

While indeed many politicians have lied during elections just to gain office so they could do something else, as you're insinuating Obama is doing, these politicians are to be appalled, despised, and discounted.

Not held up as a model for all others.

I mean, just because someone breaks into your house and gets away with it doesn't mean that burglary is good.

I must ask in all sincerity, what has happened to our basic American values of truth, freedom, and justice, when even the purported last bastions of its defense lay down their arms to sleep?
ST


"... Yes, Knowing a persons voting record, speeches and actions are important but what is more important is how we act to get them to correct the mistakes they make in representing us. Mere voting is no longer enough."
Posted by: bluflame1225 | January 19, 2008 02:03 PM


As I said before, you had already lost me by this point and your ending statements simply solidified my confusion.

Fellow citizen, you are literally making no sense at all. If you've already elected somebody knowing that they were just saying things during their campaign that they weren't going to do, then what makes you think you're going to "act" in some way to correct "mistakes" which you've already fully accepted?

From your statements it would seem that you're advocating electing anybody, no matter what they say, and then protesting against them once they get in office hoping they will do the right thing.

I am genuinely baffled by your train wreck of logic.

Please stop and think about what you are saying, and what you are doing. You mention civic responsibility, and then advocate the complete abdication of it.

As Americans we should demand that our representatives be honest, and just, and humane. As Americans we must always assure that our representatives do not violate the bounds of their lawful duties and authority, by justly punishing them if they do.

American principals are not difficult to understand fellow citizens. Please, let us all rediscover them.
ST


"Never forsake humanity for inhumanity, despite all disguise."
SearingTruth

A Future of the Brave - www.searingtruth.com


Posted by: SearingTruth | January 20, 2008 1:05 AM

Great post Andrew. Ahhh, Sir Edmund Hillary. He was truly a great New Zealander and giver to the community - he will be sorely missed.

Anywayz...I digress.

Of the 17 counties at play in Nevada, Obama took 64.7% of them, with an average win margin of 14.7. Clinton took the remaining counties with a win margin of 12.

What won the 'numbers' for Clinton was through a win margin in the largest country of - Clark - of 10.54. The second largest country - Wahoe - went to Obama with a 9.33 margin.

Note for future caucuses. A general mail-out to all households, on paper that can't be replicated - giving details of caucus locations. Clear signs posted outside of Caucus locations, with direction arrows, a number of them leading to the location - clearly stipulating who you can caucus for there. Campaigners from all major runners policing the signs to ensure there is no foul play with them.

Earlier and complete posting of caucus locations in Newspapers, signs providing 0800 numbers for calling about locations and a web-site address for getting the information online.

Public repeatedly and clearly informed to not respond to phone calls to their homes telling them where to go to caucus and also to ignore any directions given on the street.

No push polls or negative phone messages to caucus goers within 24 hours of the caucus or primary vote. Only a debate with both candidates the day prior to the vote, focused on issues.

Over-stocking of nominee cards, with each caucus/election location 'signing off' on the numbers received.

Votes go into a locked and tamper proof steel box after having been counted, either via machine or by hand. Access keys stored in a secure location. All memory cards from machines are to also go into a locked box - no more AWOL business. Delegates from each party are present when counts are made, cross-verifying them, at no time leaving accurate vote counting to a corporation without others able to view the process.

Just some suggestions to try and keep this race fair and clean.

Posted by: JayKay2 | January 19, 2008 11:27 PM

08 is the year the GOP nominee wins in excess of 50% of the black vote. Thanks to the Clintons. Black folk ought to have thought of the GOP longago as they share values.. the gay/steinem/abortion/illegal immigrant types never were for your type Oh-bah-mah... join the party of your hero Abe Lincoln and leabe the party of the Goldwater follower HRC and her ignorant black surrogates who are envious of your intellect. Here is a fella whohas a JD magna cum laude going against a Goldwater sympathizer who failed her first attempt at the bar exam and yet plays herself up to being this great savior. I am not for affirmative action and Oh-ba-mah is not a product of it.. he has merit ..so welcome to the GOP and lead the herd to light and away from being used for votes to get gay marriage legalized. The liberals don't care about you..they care about their own agenda and will never vote of oh-bah-mah.. wake up. GOP 08

Posted by: krux | January 19, 2008 11:26 PM

Hillary Clinton "won" Nevada Caucuses to get 12 additional delegates while Barack Obama "lost" and got 13 additional delegates. According to CNN Election Center 2008 Clinton currently has 36 delegates and Obama 38 so far in a race to get 2,025, which is the magic number of delegates necessary to win the Democratic nomination.

The LA Times agrees that Obama picked up 13 in Nevada and Clinton 12 but lists a totally different delegate count from the associated press:

Clinton 236
Obama 136

These 2 delegate counts can't both be correct. Which one is correct?

Posted by: bobwestafer | January 19, 2008 11:24 PM

willowbarcelona:

I don't think there's any doubt that Bill will wield tremendous influence with Hillary. Would she, at the end of the day, go against his wishes if she had a different opinion? Who knows? I don't think that those of us who are not in their inner circle could say. But my opinion of human nature leads me to believe that he will be able to persuade her to follow the course he recommends because he is that sort of personality.

Posted by: Tim_G | January 19, 2008 11:20 PM

Brian_Wood, you must remember that those 55 superdelegates are from her endorsments. She didn't earn those from primaries. Obama is starting to rack up his endorsements. Every endorsement by a democratic congressperson, governor and certain public leaders is a superdelegate for that candidate.

Posted by: johnk | January 19, 2008 11:12 PM

If Abe Lincoln saw todays blacks getting used for votes and then dumped by dems like HRC and WJC..after all these years of emancipation..he would endorse slavery! Oh-bah-mah...join the GOP. At least the GOPers' say what they mean. Reading WaPo posts from so called "liberals" supporting HRC...one wonders who is more racist?. the southern strategists in the GOP or these "liberal" agenda folks who can never win an election without black votes yet can never vote for one... McCain 08 black folk don't be used go vote Mac. anybody but Clinton wins in 08

Posted by: krux | January 19, 2008 11:10 PM

Whoa. Not liking that visual. Ceaser's Palace.

Posted by: Tim_G | January 19, 2008 11:07 PM

Are Hillary and Bill running for the presidency together? Would someone explain this to me: Is a vote for Hillary a vote for two presidents with two desks in the Oval Office?

Posted by: willowbarcelona | January 19, 2008 11:00 PM

Oppose the Plutocracy: Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.

Posted by: nelainek | January 19, 2008 10:10 PM

By far the finest blog on the Internet is right here -- and the absence of blatant vitriol refreshing.

Martin Edwin "Mick" Andersen, it is truly a pleasure to read your musings. I expect you're a professional writer, and if not, you most assuredly could be. Now, on to politics.

Since the debacle of Florida in 2000, I've spent an inordinate amount of time studying PresidentElect.org for pearls of wisdom, leading me now to my undisputed pinnacle of political acumen, albeit often tainted by the absence of facts.

However, here is one bold conjecture upon which I would bet my entire Hosta collection; should Hillary Rodham Clinton win the nomination (a "too close to call" race at the moment) Hades will freeze over long before she will ever win a general election -- in 2008, or otherwise. Of this, I am unequivocally certain.

I am also unambiguous that, were it not for Ross Perot, the name "Hillary", "Rodham", and possibly "Clinton" would ring but very faint bells in anyone's mind, save for the memory of one "Sir Edmund", her false claim of namesake notwithstanding.

Andrew Lietzow - Des Moines, IA

Posted by: obiwan1250 | January 19, 2008 10:05 PM

As an agent of change and being "outside the beltway" Barack sure does have some pretty standard political baggage:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/749138,obama20web.article

Posted by: dhejab | January 19, 2008 10:00 PM

PS. Obama needs to get back on focus and keep positive now. Refute allegations but try and keep above counter-allegations. Let people read between the lines in your refutations.

Stay strong in your message, don't let it be dragged down and distorted. Dig down inside and pull the hope back up that empowered you in Iowa. Be humble, don't let your ego be manipulated.

Keep to your message of unity and let Independents and blue-swing Republicans show their support for you in the polls. If you can do that, you will get the super delegates lining up behind you because they will realize you have the wider support to win the presidential nomination that exists on the fringes and outside of the Democratic base.

Posted by: JayKay2 | January 19, 2008 9:55 PM

There was a big looser in Nevada, Bill Clinton - shameful

Posted by: FebM | January 19, 2008 9:55 PM

CNN has also confirmed that Obama won in terms of delegates with 13 to Hillary's 12.

Posted by: youarejerks1 | January 19, 2008 9:45 PM

The Obama camp's delegate/statewide support argument is stupid for three reasons: first, in the general election, whoever wins the most votes in a state wins all the electoral votes--no matter what part of the state the votes they receive come from--there is no advantage to state wide support; second, in Iowa, Clinton finished third in the caucus, but ahead of Edwards and therefore second in the delegates. I've not read anywhere, though, that Clinton finished second in Iowa; and third, one delegate in a race to 2025 is meaningless. The total delegates at stake in the first four primaries and caucuses is meaningless. What matters at this pre-Super Tuesday stage is a showing of an ability to win elections and the momentum that comes from winning elections.

All this gambit by Obama shows is that he is an ungracious loser. His true colors are now coming to the fore.

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

You've also got to remember that the way things have been set up was set up by the National Democratic Party - which Obama had little to do with. If Clinton and supporters start attacking that whenever it suits them - well that's just another alienation - which they seem quite happy to engage in at any given moment that it suits them.

The Clinton's have been playing a lot of dirty tricks and the more they play them the more obvious it becomes. How many times can they come out constantly attacking Obama until people get divided and fed up?

They are building a negative momentum around them. I would like to think that Karma pays back that negativity in kind.

Posted by: JayKay2 | January 19, 2008 9:42 PM

It's Hillary and there is NO question about it. In 2016 when the country is strong again, Obama and his dream will have my vote.

Remember that Democrats are the best. When all is said and done we will support the winning candidate and unite the party!

Posted by: soocool5 | January 19, 2008 9:42 PM

Brian - I'm curious - how is Clinton 55 ahead in delegate counts - presuming we are basing this on counts from Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada.

Obama got more delegates in both Nevada and Iowa and drew with Clinton in New Hampshire.

You couldn't possibly be referring to Michigan delegates - you know, the state that is not even going to be able to send delegates? The state that only had Hillary on the ticket, when the others pulled out in respect of the National Democratic parties wishes?

In terms of the three legitimate races to date - Obama is two ahead.

Posted by: JayKay2 | January 19, 2008 9:36 PM

CLINTON SAYS WE HAVE THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT BECAUSE LYNDON JOHNSON SIGNED IT.

GOLWATER RAN A CAMPAIGN AGAINST JOHNSON...
SO WHY WAS SHE CAMPAIGNING FOR BARRY GOLDWATER WHO WAS AGAINST THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT???

BY THE WAY CHECK OUT BILL CLINTON'S RACIST POSTCARD HE SENT TO HIS GRANDMA IN 1966 DURING THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT.

http://serr8d.blogspot.com/2007/10/bill-clinton-racist-postcard-buy-it-now.html

Posted by: laplumelefirmament | January 19, 2008 9:26 PM

To j. tarnow, the popular vote lost by obama and bush. Obama has no basis of comparison to Reagan.

Posted by: HANKSF | January 19, 2008 9:25 PM

Barack Obama for President of the UNITED States of America.

Posted by: PulSamsara | January 19, 2008 9:23 PM

JTARNOW - the posting said that both obama and BUSH lost the popular vote ... not reagan. but i suppose if you obamanuts slowed down long enough to read for comprehension then your candidate of choice might not look so illustrious after all.

Posted by: matthewmaverick | January 19, 2008 9:22 PM

apparently women & latinos fueled Clinton's victory. Expect the Clinton camp to continue to "label" Obama as merely a "black" candidate. Clinton camp will also try to continue to build on latino vote and may be ready to "abandon" the black vote. If that's the case, will blacks be willing to vote for a Republican or a third party candidate like Bloomberg?

Blacks have placed themselves between a rock (Democratic Party - taking the black vote for granted) and a hard place (Republican Party - ignoring the black vote). Blacks have done something that personal financial gurus advise against - "don't put all your retirement eggs [money] in one basket." Blacks have put all their "voting block" in one basket - the Democractic Party. This election will show how wrong-headed this strategy has been. The two political parties (thanks Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson for this terrible system) compete for the vote of latinos, asians, etc. Blacks have "pigeon holed" themselves by voting "like a herd" - first for the Republican Party after Lincoln [which is understandable] and then for the Democratic Pary since FDR. No longer the "majority minority" and not having the economic clout of other minority groups, Blacks will continue to be marginalized not only economically, but politically. Blacks need to rethink "voting" like a herd, as a block for one party.

Posted by: nelainek | January 19, 2008 9:21 PM

THEY USE SCARE TACTICS IN IOWA AGAINST STUDENTS...

THEY USE RACE CARD AGAINST BLACKS IN SOUTH CAROLINA...

THEY USE SMEAR TACTICS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE ABOUT DRUGS AND ABORTION...

THEY USE LAWSUITS IN NEVADA AGAINST HISPANICS...

THEY WILL DO ANYTHING FOR POWER!!!!WELCOME TO THE CLINTONS WORLD!!!

Posted by: laplumelefirmament | January 19, 2008 9:20 PM

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 has 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."

Posted by: loiswhitfield | January 19, 2008 9:18 PM

CLINTON SAYS WE HAVE THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT BECAUSE LYNDON JOHNSON SIGNED IT.

GOLWATER RAN A CAMPAIGN AGAINST JOHNSON...
SO WHY WAS SHE CAMPAIGNING FOR BARRY GOLDWATER WHO WAS AGAINST THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT???

BY THE WAY CHECK OUT BILL CLINTON'S RACIST POSTCARD HE SENT TO HIS GRANDMA IN 1966 DURING THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT.

http://serr8d.blogspot.com/2007/10/bill-clinton-racist-postcard-buy-it-now.html

Posted by: laplumelefirmament | January 19, 2008 9:17 PM

Obama supporters need to take a look at their guy. JFK he aint. Obama supporters are obsessed with the *idea* of an *ideal* candidate and they are so smitten with the guy and his talk that they have lost their heads. Look at your guy. He's throwing Reagan's name around and Reagan's legacy around just like the republican candidates are! His lone claim to fame is having given a speech against the war when HE WASN'T EVEN IN THE SENATE. He has no idea how he would have voted had he been in the senate. How disingenuous.

Come on you guys. Look at your candidate. See what is there instead of what you want to see.

Posted by: shes_outrageous | January 19, 2008 9:16 PM

In response to HANKSF... what history books are you reading that have Ronald Reagan losing the popular vote in either 1980 or 1984? In 1980, Reagan received 43.9 million popular votes comparied to Carter's 36.5 million (winning the electoral college 489-49), and over Mondale in 1984 by a margin of 54.5 million to 37.6 million (winning the electoral college 525-13).

Posted by: JTARNOW | January 19, 2008 9:08 PM

Those independents and republicans that support Obama, will not, for the vast majority, support Clinton in a general election. So I wonder still, is the Democratic Party so locked into Clinton that they want to lose again in November or are they smart enough to compromise with the man the that has proven able to pull a large number of swing votes? Independents do generally vote in force in November and if they were interested in Clinton they would have voted for her instead of Obama. It really doesn't take a political spinner to know that the diehard Democrats will vote that party, the diehard Republicans will vote their party and the middle is trying to speak now with a compromise they can vote for. Frankly politics are changing, more people are tired of the establishment aspects of the parties and both the right and left would be wise to listen

Posted by: oscarb71 | January 19, 2008 9:05 PM

This is a petty argument, after the super-tuesday primary in California and other big states, these few little states will only be memories...goodbye Obama, hello Mrs. Clinton...
I can hardly wait for the primaries to be over and close ranks behind Clinton and go for the big knock-out-win in November!

Posted by: bajashark | January 19, 2008 8:59 PM

It would be nice if members of our illustrious Fourth Estate would report facts regarding the Presidential Campaign rather than merely offering conjecture, opinions, and projections.
PJay Amadio

Posted by: ezwriterpja | January 19, 2008 8:57 PM

mnjam,

Though I agree that Obama has drawn many independents and republicans to support him and he leads Clinton consistently among men; Clinton has held a significant lead among women in the last two states.

Also, in the general election is does not matter if you the majority of votes you get in a state come from only a few regions of the state, all that matters is getting the most votes from that state. In the general election it is the winner who gets all of the electoral college votes from a given state.

Posted by: brian_wood | January 19, 2008 8:54 PM

mnjam,

Though I agree that Obama has drawn many independents and republicans to support him and he leads Clinton consistently among men; Clinton has held a significant lead among women in the last two states.

Also, in the general election is does not matter if the majority of votes you get in a state come from only a few regions of the state, all that matters is getting the most votes from that state. In the general election it is the winner who gets all of the electoral college votes from a

Posted by: brian_wood | January 19, 2008 8:52 PM

Did Hillary win Nevada?

Not if the words of Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson are to be believed.

Before the voting Wolfson claimed that this is a race for delegates... it is not a battle for individual states.

Obama won more delegates. Does that mean we will see Wolfson congratulations the Illinois senator for his victory?

Hmmmm. I suspect not. Rather, he'll just be ratcheting up the spin cycle.

Yawn.

Martin Edwin "Mick" Andersen

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | January 19, 2008 8:49 PM

This is the second state that Clinton may have won the popular vote with her dirty tactics in larger cities but lost the overall delegate vote where the observers could stand back and see her ugly ploys instead of being caught up in the mobs of them. Her delegate lead is only due to the establishment votes that have helped put this country in the mess we currently have. Do we really want to see the continued destruction of the USA? I believe and pray that there are enough voters in the country to keep Hilary from getting the nomination else we could see another republican in office.

Posted by: oscarb71 | January 19, 2008 8:47 PM

It's increasingly clear that Obama will be the more viable candidate in November.

He runs best in the demographic segments the Democrats need: young of both sexes, men, upscale voters. He also runs best in the places the Democrats need: Iowa and Nevada (state wide, not just a few places). It is no accident that he is winning the endorsement battle when it comes to red state Democrats.

Super-delegates should take note. The nomination should hinge on electability -- not party pedigree. Winning in November is far more important than which Democrat wins.

Posted by: mnjam | January 19, 2008 8:40 PM

writeava,

Yes Clinton's lead is due to the super delegates. It is still a lead!

It is unlikely that Obama will win SC by enough to take the delegate lead, even with more super delegates choosing a candidate.

After SC there are the very large states on 2/5, many of which only allow registered Democrats to participate in the Democratic primaries. Since Clinton has consistently led Obama in the % of registered Democratic votes she has received, it is more likely the her lead will expand in the coming weeks and not contract.

Posted by: brian_wood | January 19, 2008 8:40 PM

In response to Brian_Wood's comment:

Clinton is leading the establishment delegate count, which will fall apart if Obama wins the delegates awarded by primaries and cacauses. Clinton, Bush cycle is gonna stop on february 5. See sac Bee endoresement.

Posted by: khctamu | January 19, 2008 8:39 PM

One thing is becoming true about this particular campaign: the seconds, campaign spokesmen, organization spinmeisters, and assorted flacks, as well as much of the press, need to clam up, step back, and let B, H, J, and D and M, do the talking, speechifying, and interpretation. The actual differentiation of the candidates is the point of view they represent, because except for Dennis Kucinich, who probably best speaks for the heart and soul of the Party, especially on impeachment and ending the war, there isn't much more than the true connoisseur's judgment in differences of positions separating the candidates.

Hillary's message is accomplish the possible. Barack's message is aim higher and hope. John E's message is concentrate on the working class. It is a matter of deciding who in the country is to be the focus of the party, pragmatist, optimist, or populist. Picking auxiliary fights to help your side merely produces festering wounds that will weaken the party in its attempt to provide a Congress immune to intransigent Republicans. Attack with the force of the candidates personality, don't attack the other candidates' personalities. Hear and respond to the actual content of your opponents speeches, don't twist them to find some grounds to feel insulted. And for Barack specifically, run a losing campaign, with the class to admit that losing this one with class will make you a far more winning candidate in eight years, when you should be THE outstanding candidate to succeed Hillary or John E. If all three run a more optimistic Al Smith campaign, maybe we can take some of the unnecessary partisinship out of this election.

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


I'm not sure who's the fox and who's the hen here...Obama and Hillary are both card sharks.

Posted by: jabailo | January 19, 2008 8:30 PM

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

Posted by: HANKSF | January 19, 2008 8:29 PM

The point of presidential elections is to win delegates and electoral votes - not popular votes. Interestingly, the CNN board shows Obama with more delegates than Clinton in New Hampshire - but it was a great victory for Clinton according to the political punditocracy. It is the media's obsession with thinking popular votes matter that distorts political coverage. At the time the media said Romney had to win in Michigan, he had more delegates than anyone. Until the races become winner take all, popular votes are secondary - press hype to the contrary notwithstanding.

Posted by: blawthomp | January 19, 2008 8:26 PM

The point of presidential elections is to win delegates and electoral votes - not popular votes. Interestingly, the CNN board shows Obama with more delegates than Clinton. It is the media's obsession with thinking popular votes matter that distorts political coverage. At the time the media said Romney had to win in Michigan, he had more delegates than anyone. Until the races become winner take all, popular votes are secondary - press hype to the contrary notwithstanding.

Posted by: blawthomp | January 19, 2008 8:25 PM

brian_wood - Obama used to lag by over 100 delegates because Clinton leads him in superdelegates, but he has cut that lead down to 55 in less than a month. If he wins SC, I'm sure more superdelegates will sign on with him, and he'll be going into super tuesday with about as many delegates as Clinton.

Posted by: writeava | January 19, 2008 8:24 PM

T. S. Eliot wrote in his last "Quartet" that: "The end of our exploring will be to arrive where we started and see the place for the first time."

This hopefully last hurrah of the Clintons has him devaluing the image of the former president by playing apoplectic hack on the stump, while she--the putative breaker of glass ceilings--shows that other than in genitalia she is little different from, say, Richard Nixon in her pursuit of power.

We see them now as if for the first time.

Martin Edwin "Mick" Andersen

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | January 19, 2008 8:22 PM

Obama's support statewide shows that he is a stronger candidate to run in the general election and has a better chance of helping to increase dem majority needed to get things done in congress.

Posted by: lcw04 | January 19, 2008 8:21 PM

Mr. Axelrod should also be aware that his candidate is loosing in the total delegate count. Obama is currently behind Clinton by 55 delegates in the total count. If Mr. Axelrod is comfortable at "taking delegates" at this rate Obama should loose to Clinton by several hundred delegates.

Posted by: brian_wood | January 19, 2008 8:18 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company