(Bumped: TL)

The Nevada polls are all over the place and we should probably ignore them . . . which is why I am posting the LV Review-Journal poll conducted by Mason Dixon:

On Friday the Review-Journal will publish the results of our statewide pre-caucus presidential preference poll conducted Monday through Wednesday by Mason-Dixon Polling & research.

On the GOP side former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney leads his closest opponent by 15 points.

On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton outdistances Barack Obama by 9 points.

Update [2008-1-18 8:58:4 by Big Tent Democrat]: Here are more details:

"Clinton's base is women and voters over 50, and she does well with Hispanic voters," said pollster Brad Coker, Mason-Dixon managing partner. "Those have been the national patterns, and Nevada, I think, is more reflective of the nation as a whole than either Iowa or New Hampshire." Obama dominates among black voters, favored by 65 percent to Clinton's 18 percent, but they make up just 10 percent of likely caucus-goers. Hispanics make up 15 percent of likely caucus-goers and favor Clinton over Obama by 50 percent to 29 percent. Obama, who has gotten a major boost from the Culinary union, also leads among union households, but by only 7 percentage points over Clinton. Edwards, despite his focus on the labor vote, is in third place in this and almost every other group.

The other thing to note is Mason Dixon has been polling in Nevada for many years with a very good track record. It appears this poll may carry more weight than the others.

Remember this?

Obama criticized Edwards for saying that he doesn't approve of 527s, while at the same time not disavowing a group, Alliance for a New America . . . "You've got these outside groups that are helping out candidates and it's a way of getting around the campaign finance laws. . . . [Y]ou can't say yesterday you don't believe in 'em, and today you have three quarters of a million dollars being spent for you. You can't just talk the talk. The easiest thing in the world is to talk about change during election time."

No kidding Senator Obama. You sure aren't walking the walk in Nevada: [More....]

Via Left Coaster, Joe Califano's terrific piece discusses the historic partnership between LBJ and MLK. It is a great history lesson:

The greatest fairy tale of the 2008 campaign so far is the accusation that there is some tint of racism or putdown of Martin Luther King Jr. in Hillary Clinton's comment that "it took a president," Lyndon Johnson, to realize the civil rights leader's dreams. The visionary preacher and the tough-talking master politician would be the first to say that they needed each other. I know how they came to work together, in a complex partnership, to produce a social revolution that has saved this nation. . . . LBJ appreciated King's powers of persuasion and ability to attract media attention. He decided to "shove my stack of chips into the pot" to push for passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlawed discrimination in education, employment and public accommodations. To break a filibuster, Johnson had California Democrat Clair Engle, who was dying of a brain tumor, wheeled onto the Senate floor. Engle couldn't speak, so LBJ had him signal his aye vote by pointing to his eye.

More...

HuffPo:

Hillary Clinton brought a ratings bonanza this "Meet the Press" this week, delivering an audience of 4.71 million viewers to the network — it's largest audience for a regularly-scheduled prgram since January 30, 2005.

Love her or hate her, they still pay attention to her.

What do you think Obama meant by this?

Not very Reaganesque to me. See, Reagan said HIS Party was the "party of ideas."

Oh btw, here is an extended clip of Obama on the fights of the 60s. I guess disrespecting Dr. King and other leaders of the "fights of the 60s" is ok if you are Obama:

Like Barack Obama, Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias seemingly have no understanding of how Ronald Reagan operated as a politician. Ezra writes:

What he's saying is that Reagan effectively understood the ideological currents in the country and used that mastery of public opinion to drive popular sentiment. In other words, he admires Reagan for shifting the center. . . . Obama is suggesting he has a fairly grandly ideological view of the president's role, and that it includes harnessing the ideological forces of the moment to push the country in a new direction.

This is simply balderdash. Ronald Reagan did not rise from thin air in 1980 and ride a wave of conservative sentiment. Ronald Reagan was the heir to Barry Goldwater's conservative revolution. He fought the Rockefeller "post-partisan" Republicans throughout his political career and finally won in 1980. He carried that message into a general election and won a mandate for his ideas. Obama is running a campaign that is the exact opposite of the Reagan trajectory. I know Ezra and Matt are young, but it is amazing how little they seem to know about Ronald Reagan. They could not possibly be more wrong than they are.

Via Jerome Armstrong, Edwards rips Obama. Unfortunatrely thre story seems mangled up. Indeed it provides a quote for Obama which I wish he would have said, but I am pretty sure he did NOT:

"When the country was so sick of a blue state president, Carter, Reagan was able to tap into it by being 100% red-state," said Obama. "Reagan knew the electorate was so sick of a blue-state president and blue-state policies, they we're willing to go 100% red. Reagan didn't mince words. He ran on a 100% red-state message. When Reagan won with a 100% red state message, Reagan had a 100% red-state mandate. Reagan knew transformation was all about mandate. Reagan ran a clear red-issue campaign. He never reached out to blue. Reagan was able to bowl over any resistance in Congress because he had a clear 100% red-state mandate. When you have a 100% red-state mandate, no one is surprised by what you do. Reagan, therefore, was able to get all the changes he wanted. Reagan was for those reasons...transformational."

But Obama never said that, which is a shame. At least it would have shown he gets it. Unfortunately, as I wrote before, Obama is no Reagan.

Update: The Judge threw out the teachers' union lawsuit. Strip caucus voting will proceed. From the court docket available on PACER:

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - Preliminary/Permanent Injunction Hearing held on 1/17/2008 before Judge James C. Mahan. ...Time of Hearing: 9:00 am.; Courtroom: 6A; Representations of counsel are heard. The court made its findings.denying 6 Motion for TRO.; granting 10 Motion to Intervene. Submission of Proposed Order obo defendants due by 1/24/2008. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DXO) (Entered: 01/17/2008)

The Las Vegas Review Journal reports:

U.S. District Judge James Mahan has ruled against the attempt by the teachers union to block at-large precincts on the Strip. Mahan said he did not want to set a precedent that could affect other caucuses across the country and that the Democratic Party had the right to set its own rules.

The Las Vegas Sun says no appeal is likely.

[More...]

Karl Rove has a preview of attacks we can expect Republicans to make against Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, once either gets the Democratic nomination for President. On Obama:

“He got elected three years ago, and he [has] spent almost the entire time running for president,” Rove said.

Rove added that Obama has only passed one piece of legislation during his time in the U.S. Senate, and during his time in Illinois state Senate, Obama had “an unusual habit” of voting “present” instead of yes or no.

On Hillary:

On Clinton, Rove said the senator talks about fiscal responsibility but has introduced “$800 billion in new spending and the campaign is less than half over.”

Rove said that “the woman” wants to repeal all of Bush’s tax cuts, and that she can be targeted for voting against “troop funding” in the form of her votes against the Iraq war supplementals.

More...

Sometimes, you just can not control them, the campaign surrogates. Here is Obama supporter Rev. Joseph Lowery being offensive:

Just when you thought supporters of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had gotten past this race thing. In an address to the Hungry Club at Butler Street YMCA in downtown Atlanta, the Rev. Joseph Lowery re-stoked the fires on Wednesday when he told the largely African-American audience that “a slave mentality” was fueling black doubts about Obama’s chances of capturing the White House. “The slavery mentality compels us to say, ‘We can’t win, we can’t do,’” said Lowery, an avid Obama supporter and a co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Strong words, when you consider that they include people like U.S. Rep. John Lewis or former Atlanta mayor Andrew Young.

Oh I know, some will come tell me he was NOT talking about African American Clinton supporters, he REALLY wasn't. Suure. And Bob Johnson was not talking about Obama's drug use. Tell me another one. In any event, I feel confident that the Obama campaign had NOTHING to do with this. They are not stupid. The pitfalls of campaign surrogates and supporters is what is at work here. People should keep that in mind the next time some idiot Clinton supporter says something stupid and offensive.

In the new Pew poll, while still trailing Hillary Clinton nationally 46-31, BarackObama has made significant inroads among self described liberals, and African Americans. Ronald Reagan is not well loved by these groups. Obama's praise, and yes I understand it was not praise of his policies per se, could haunt him with these groups. Here are the numbers:

Obama went from 27-49 down among liberals to 35-37, up 10 while Hillary was down 12. Among African Americans, Obama went from up 47-45 to up 52-33, from up 2 to up 19.

I suspect you will be hearing the Clinton campaign bring up Obama's admiration for Reagan in an attempt to erode Obama's inroads with these two groups.

Taylor Marsh interviewed a culinary union worker today who complained her union is pressuring her to vote for Obama. (Podcast here.) Pamela of Democratic Daily has a similar post up.

Las Vegas Sun columnist John Ralston said the union began its "it's the union above all else” pitch right after it endorsed Obama.

The “It’s the union above all else” pitch began Wednesday when Secretary-Treasurer D. Taylor announced the Obama endorsement. He praised all the candidates but made it clear that his members value union solidarity above all.

MyDD diarist Izaradar, who belongs to a union, says union endorsements are more problematic in caucus than primary states:

What's the big deal, you might ask? The union leadership can't force a member to honor the endorsement of Senator Obama. If a member wants to vote for John Edwards, or Senator Clinton, they're free to do so. This is a democracy, right? The secret ballot protects our identity and our choice. Well, that's a problem.

This is an open caucus. Union members will be standing in the same room with other union members. Or maybe even their shop steward. Or their foreman. Or possibly even a union official. Everyone will know which candidate you're backing. And if you're a member of Culinary Workers Local 226, and you don't caucus for Senator Obama??? That could make for a long shift on Monday.

[More...]