This doesn't surprise me. It's another example of not knowing where Barack Obama really stands on various issues.

The 60,000 member Nevada Culinary Workers' Union has endorsed Barack Obama. Obama says he supports gaming in Nevada. But,

As an Illinois state senator, Obama reportedly questioned the use of gaming as a tool for economic development in his state. In 1999, he voted against a bill that expanded gaming there, while in 2003 he voted for a bill supported by the gaming industry that loosened regulations.

As of now, the feds have outlawed internet gaming. They also control Indian casinos. While some will say Obama's thoughts on gaming are irrelevant since besides these two facets, gambling laws are left to the states, I'm not so sure. There will be continued efforts federally to allow internet gaming.

Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman, in a CNN interview in November(video here), said the candidates' positions on internet gaming could be an issue:[More...]

In the wake of the Nevada Culinary Workers' Union endorsement of Barack Obama, and the Nevada Democratic party's creation of at-large precincts inside Las Vegas strip hotels, the Nevada Teachers' Union and six Nevada voters have filed a federal lawsuit seeking to ban the Democratic Party from holding the newly created caucuses.

The suit alleges that the newly created voting places inside hotels violates the "one person, one vote rule" and equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment by creating at-large precincts based solely on employment. A copy of the complaint is here (pdf.)

The lawsuit argues that the Nevada Democratic Party’s decision, decided late last year, to create at-large precincts inside nine Las Vegas resorts on caucus day violates the state’s election laws and creates a system in which voters at the at-large precincts can elect more delegates than voters at other precincts. The lawsuit employs a complex mathematical formula to show that voters at the other 1,754 precincts would have less influence with their votes.

As to the party's decision to establish the precincts inside hotels:

The at-large precincts are being established because thousands of hotel workers cannot leave work to participate in the midday caucuses in their home precincts.

More...

Now this is a predictable development as Ben Nelson is the king of bipartisanship, voting with Republicans more than any other Democrat:

Nebraska U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson plans to make an announcement on Saturday morning that his spokesman said has national implications.

Again, the national implications for me are not positive for Obama, they are negative. I am glad that Ben Nelson is a Democrat and coming from Nebraska, I doubt we could get someone better, but Nelson's views are NOT what I want for the Democratic Party. It wil be interesting to see how Nelson explains his support for Obama. I imagine the reachout unity schtick will be the explanation. I personally do not want that for the Democratic Party. Remember, Ben Nelson endorsed Joe Lieberman as an INDEPENDENT in the Connecticut Senate race in 2006.
Update [2008-1-12 13:15:14 by Big Tent Democrat]: Uh Oh:

Nelson, a popular moderate in largely Republican Nebraska, said Obama has "the greatest potential to ending the bitterness and poisonous atmosphere in Washington." Nelson said Obama's victory speech in Iowa was an effort to reach out to Democrats, independents and "enlightened Republicans," and that Obama epitomizes what Nelson has tried to do in Washington. Obama is the "prototype of what we need today," Nelson said.

Ay yay yay.

After winning New Hampshire for Hillary Clinton by galvanizing women voters to support Hillary, the Tweety Effect (Media Misogyny pushing women voters to Hillary) has gone national:

Clinton is at 49 percent in the new poll, up nine points from the December survey, with Obama at 36 percent, which is a six-point gain from his December standing." . . . Clinton has re-established herself as the Democratic front-runner, especially among Democratic women," Schneider said.

Notice that Obama has also risen in this poll so it is not that Obama lost support, he is not blamed for the Media Misogyny, the Media is blamed. As it should be. Now we have a contest and hopefully, a chastened Media. May the best person win.

One of the more irresponsible takes on why the pollsters got it wrong in New Hampshire was discussed earlier by Jeralyn. Andrew Kohut of Pew Research's attributing Obama's loss to white racism was incredibly irresponsible. I refer Mr Kohut to the words of James Clyburn. CYA-ing for pollsters is no excuise for what Kohut has done. Worse than that, Kohut has no basis for saying what he said. John Judis dismantles Kohut's irresponsible speculation:

To my mind, Edwards made a grievous mistake, both as a question of politics and issues, when he decided to give Obama a free pass. It effectively ended his campaign, both as a question of issues and politics. But I must agree with this from Ezra Klein:

Much more so than Obama, it was Edwards who forced a new style of politics, untethered by the fear and timidity of the 90s, adamant that liberalism was an electoral boon and economic justice a popular sentiment. Knowing they had to defend against his challenge, both Hillary and Obama edged closer to his appeal. This left the Edwards campaign without much substance on which to distinguish itself, but it left the Democrats in a much stronger position overall, and forced them to argue for, and commit to, a much broader and more inspiring agenda than we otherwise might have seen.

Thank you John Edwards for that.

Markos gets some flak (most of it candidate support inspired imo) in the thread of his post advocating a Dems For Romney campaign in Michigan (where the Dem primary is unofficial.) Markos wants Romney to scramble the GOP field (I assume he also wants to hurt McCain's chances.) I am dubious of the efficacy of the effort but it does highloght the absurdity of the concept of "open" primaries. If a party is choosing its standardbearer, only members of that party should be allowed to participate. Or as Markos writes:

Open primaries are stupid. Should we be meddling in their primary? To be honest, open primaries like this Michigan one are ridiculous. As far as I'm concerned, if someone isn't a Democrat, they shouldn't get to decide my party's nominee. If someone isn't a Republican, they shouldn't get to decide the Republican's nominee. So if this little campaign adds impetus for closing primaries, so much the better. But as long as the law allows crossover voting, there is nothing wrong with picking up the ballot you think best helps YOUR candidate.

And any progressive member of the Democratic base should support this point of view. Open primaries are invitations to ignoring the base. This seems obvious to me.

Courtesy of the Dutch, you can answer a quick 25 questions and find the top Democrat (or Republican) that most closely matches your positions on issues -- you can even rank the issues in terms of importance to you before they calculate the final results.

VoteMatch USA 2008 is a product of the Dutch Institute for Political Particpation, made for and in cooperation with current affairs programme OneToday.

VoteMatch USA 2008 comprises eight candidates who will take part in the preliminary US presidential elections, three Democrats and five Republicans. These eight candidates are deemed most likely to win by authoritative research institutes such as Pew Research and Brookings Institution...

After you get the results, which are broken down by issue and specify on which ones the three Democrats agree and disagree with you, you can click and read their statements on those issues.

My results (and again, these are based only on the candidates' positions on issues)came out: John Edwards, very closely followed by Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama was third. There was a larger gap between Hillary and Obama.

Take the test, it's very quick, and let us know the results in comments.

From Time's Jay Newton-Small (I never heard of her either):

An interesting endorsement for Obama today. Pelosi's BFF George Miller. . . . [W]hen her top advisor [Top advisor? So that is what George Miller has been reduced to now?] who also happens to be a famous champion of women politicians endorses Obama, does it send the signal: is there room in Washington for both a Speaker Pelosi and a President Hillary?

Okaay. Can't have TOO many women with power in Washington now can we? Sheesh.

I do not and have never doubted that Barack Obama is a committed progressive. My problem has always been with his political style - the Unity Schtick. Because in the real world of DC politics, it will not work. Barack Obama will be savaged by the Right Wing just as would any Democratic nominee. Charles Krauthammer provides a preview of what Republicans would say about Barack Obama should he be the nominee:

Speaking for me only.

Andrew Cuomo commented:

”It’s not a TV crazed race. Frankly you can’t buy your way into it,” Cuomo said. “You can’t shuck and jive at a press conference,” he added. “All those moves you can make with the press don’t work when you’re in someone’s living room.”

Cuomo tried to clarify that he was not referring to Senator Barack Obama. It seems hard to see how he was not. Cuomo must apologize for this racially insensitive, at best, comment. If he does not, the Clinton campaign must repudiate it. It went well over the line.

First it was the cackle. Then it was her flash of anger,the team-attack on her by Obama and Edwards and the moderator saying she wasn't likeable at the debate. Then the media pile-on about her emotional moment. Then the men yelling "Iron my shirt" at her during a campaign event. Then Tweety Matthews saying she only won her New York Senate seat because her husband "messed around." Then the "Buddy System" crack.

The sexist attacks on Hillary have been brutal. The New York Times reports they are also moving women into her camp, even some who previously supported Obama and Edwards. [More...]