Obama Trying To Play Bush To Hillary's Gore

This is too stupid for words:

Barack Obama may have won the most delegates in Saturday's Nevada Caucus, even though Hillary Clinton bested his statewide turnout by about six points. . . . Barack Obama released an official statement celebrating a delegate victory . . .

So Obama is trumpeting LOSING by 6 points while spending the week crying about voter disenfranchisement? The Democratic voters of Nevada clearly chose Clinton and Obama is celebrating that the intent of the voters may be thwarted by these atrocious caucus rules?

This is pathetic, insulting and ridiculous. Shame on the Obama campaign for this.

< On Partisanship: Obama Will Do What The Founders Could Not? | The Democratic Delegate Count After Nevada >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    But if you check channel two (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:48:07 PM EST
    Hillary committed widescale fraud!!!!

    I've heard this song before--from Republicans.

    Another month or two, Obama will morph... (none / 0) (#40)
    by rhbrandon on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:37:32 PM EST
    into Dick Nixon?

    Better start vaguely wondering about figuring out how to get licensure in Canada.


    CNN is currently stating Clinton 13 NV (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:51:26 PM EST
    delegates, Obama 12.

    P.S.  Your subject lines are getting better and better.  What fun.

    After whining about "disenfranchisement" (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:52:54 PM EST
    This spin is beyond shameless.

    It's actually kinda funny (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:56:09 PM EST
    Watching Axelrod on TV immed. (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:58:18 PM EST
    after the Nev. LV Dem.debate, I thought, why would Obama ever permit him to speak on his behalf on TV?  Michelle Obama is a much quicker thinker and much better speaker and image for Obama.

    Voter diesnfranchisement is never funny (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:59:06 PM EST
    to me.

    I'm talking about the Obama spin (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:00:34 PM EST
    Still not funny (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:15:05 PM EST
    Spinning to disenfranchise voters is Bush/Rove stuff.

    Understood (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:17:56 PM EST
    I know how the Republicans bellyache when they lose in Pennsylvania. There's always a racist component to it.

    First post (none / 0) (#101)
    by mexboy on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:08:22 PM EST
    This whole thing saddens me. Elections are nothing more than a sport, where it appears to be obligatory to hate the team you're not rooting for at all costs!
    I can see how with that mentality one is emotionally forced to defend ones candidate and deny the other his/her victory!
    What a shame for progressives.

    and markos (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Turkana on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:20:21 PM EST
    is helping.

    Markos has jumped the shark (5.00 / 9) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:21:53 PM EST
    Another bad front page post from him (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by diplomatic on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:41:11 PM EST
    I'm practically done with DKos now.  The hypocrisy of the Obama spinners (boosted by the front page now) has me infuriated.  The degree of unfairness and the double standards at Daily Kos is almost immoral in its scope.

    I'm not done with it (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:14:18 PM EST
    because it probably will get better. But DKos has hit a real low at the moment, both wrt the front page and the wreck list.

    It'll get better (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:46:11 PM EST
    (laughing) I still have dibs on yesteday... (none / 0) (#44)
    by rhbrandon on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:39:54 PM EST
    and I can find the comment somewhere on this blog to prove it.

    BTD, I'm wondering if, at some point, the only real way to take all of this in is to go to a favorite bar and drink noisily with friends.


    Nominated for best comment of the past (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:21:35 PM EST
    two days.  

    Obama is a cry Baby. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by talkingpoint on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:21:14 PM EST
     Poor Obama, sniff sniff poo poo. Obama is a sore loser that can't give Hillary any credit. Well, I must say he does know how to give false credit to some people, such as Ronald Reagan. Obama for Reagan. I can see the signs right now.

    sore loser indeed (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by RalphB on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:21:28 PM EST
    This is why I hate caucuses.  Delegates are apportioned in horrible ways because you have a huge land area where 12 people live and they've got delegate counts like a large population.

    If the Obama campaign were smart, they would keep this quiet instead of rubbing people's noses in the fact that they gamed the system.  That disenfranchised more voters than any union could and looks really horrible for him.

    they should be careful (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by diplomatic on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:47:40 PM EST
    They are spinning a 6% loss as a win.  This could come back to haunt them if Hillary can close the gap in South Carolina and lose by less than that, there is no way they can claim Obama had a big victory over there.

    They simply don't seem to be forward thinking.  Axelrod... sigh.


    Very telling (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by athyrio on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:45:37 PM EST
    A man's character can be best judged not by how graciously he can win but how graciously he loses...Enough said...

    This Obama clown's character (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by RalphB on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:52:58 PM EST
    is pretty lousy then.  Almost as bad as that 'noodles' posting above.  :-)

    I'm beginning to think he may not be 'likable enough'.


    Very telling (none / 0) (#53)
    by noodles on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:54:44 PM EST
    A man's character can be best judged by whether he engages in torture and extraordinary rendition.. enough said.

    Is Hillary going to distance herself from her husband's use of extraordinary rendition and her own support for this war? And how believable would such a repudiation be? Not much.


    That's absurd (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:56:35 PM EST
    Ths is a bad moment but is not all there is to the man.

    There is never (none / 0) (#62)
    by RalphB on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:06:46 PM EST
    enough to get to 'all there is to the man'.  The little things add up.  Did I not put in the :-) ?

    Not according to the (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by RalphB on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:09:28 PM EST
    Head of the Nevada Democratic Party.  Not yet anyway :-)

    Why I don't support Hillary (2.00 / 1) (#41)
    by noodles on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:37:55 PM EST
    Atrocious caucus rules? What is pathetic, insulting and ridiculous is the fact that Hillary had 155 super-delegates before the first primary or first caucus. Yes, Bill Clinton is a super-delegate thank you for asking. When is Bill going to recuse himself as a super-delegate? When are we going to have hearings on Bill Clinton's use of Extraordinary Rendition? Did the Egyptians send any video tapes of the people Bill sent to be tortured and where are those tapes now? What is Hillary opinion on her husband use of the CIA to kidnap people and transport them to other countries to be tortured? Will Hillary use Extraordinary Rendition to clandestinely torture people too? Let's get Democratic Party candidate who aren't tainted with torture and aren't complicit with WBush on the Iraq War. Hillary for Clinton's third-term? I would prefer an anti-torture anti-war candidate not a candidate running on her husband's economy. Are we some sort of banana republic where the wife of the President becomes the new ruler when he steps down? This is ridiculous.

    ACLU Fact Sheet: Extraordinary Rendition

    I think it's pretty obvious that I support Obama, or Edwards, or Kucinich, or anybody else except Hillary. I'm sick of "vote Uday he's not as bad as Qusay." Let's clean the stench of torture and war out of the white house. By the way, exactly who was behind the - Robocall Trashes "Barack Hussein Obama" - garbage in Nevada? I suppose the people like Bill who REPORTEDLY engage in Extraordinary Rendition certainly have no ethical problem with these sorts of tactics against even a fellow Democrat.

    the spin (none / 0) (#4)
    by athyrio on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:54:15 PM EST
    Corporate America owns the media businesses, therefore they think that Obama would be easier to defeat in the general election, therefore they suppport him...This is the republican party aka Karl Rove telling us who to vote for and it isn't working .......:-)

    the Media will pay this no mind (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:58:32 PM EST
    It is absurd.

    But I burns me up that Axelrod cooked up this nonsense.

    It is a slap in the face to people who care about voters rights.


    You're missing (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:00:02 PM EST
    TINS (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:14:09 PM EST
    has lost his credibility forever today. A real shame as he is a good guy.

    Candidate Derangement Syndrome.


    I've never thought much of his diaries, frankly (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:20:44 PM EST
    Disgusting. (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:01:30 PM EST
    IMO, the Republican politicos would prefer (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:59:41 PM EST
    their eventual candidate face Obama over Clinton.  But I don't attribute this to the corporate media owners.  

    sore loser (none / 0) (#11)
    by athyrio on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:00:24 PM EST
    Sure doesnt make Obama look good...I remember after he won Iowa, Hillary gave a very gracious concession speech....

    So sad that Edwards tanked (none / 0) (#14)
    by CanyonWren on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:08:47 PM EST
    I think his Yucca vote and his poor debate performance a few nights ago did him in.  It's very strange to feel nonplussed about an African American candidate and a woman candidate, as a progressive.  It would be so great to fling oneself wholeheartedly into one or the other.  I'll wait for a few weeks to see what shakes out with the Edwards campaign, but I won't be a die-hard that refuses to face reality.  If I had to choose someone other than Edwards today, I'd choose Clinton...but this could change, hearing about the sleaze-fest that went on in the caucuses (over at the Big Orange). Obama in general leans too far right, IMO.

    At this point (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jgarza on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:09:27 PM EST
    It is a delegate count, so what is wrong with emphasizing your delegate count?  What does this have to do with voting rights?

    It is disappointing to see how personal you have decided to make your posts against Obama.  George Bush? You may have valid criticisms but the tone you  use IMO is at this point just making anything you say irrelevant.

    Please stop it (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:13:10 PM EST
    This is a seriius thing for me. I was prepared to listen to all the talk this week about "voter disenfranchisement" because it is a serious issue and Obama had a point on that.

    This shows that was all a sham.

    this is Obana for Obama stuff.

    I sincerely deplore this spin.  The kicker is it is pathetic and will not help them except to make them look stupid.

    There will not be a paper or network that will give it the time of day.


    I'm not trying to insult you (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jgarza on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:15:10 PM EST
    so i hope you aren't insulted. I think your post has a good point, just the gore bush thing is a little much.

    Well (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:57:36 PM EST
    It seems right to me.

    Come on A... you made excellent points with (none / 0) (#28)
    by bronte17 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:18:09 PM EST
    the issue of women and Hispanics breaking for Hillary.

    But, I don't hear anything about Obama winning Iowa by 38% to Hillary's 29%, yet he received only 16 delegates while she got 15.

    Edwards won with more votes than Hillary at 30%, yet he received one LESS delegate than Hillary.


    What did you not hear from me? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:43:15 PM EST
    That i abvsolutely HATE the caucus system?

    Then you were not listening to me as I have ALWAYS said that. LONG before the Iowa caucuses, right before them, right after them and since then.


    listening (none / 0) (#61)
    by jojomc on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:04:58 PM EST
    I don't recall you speaking out over this 'serious issue'. At least not as forceful as you're 'speaking out' now, over a harmless piece of loser's spin.

    Questions: Is it unusual for a candidate to spin a loss in a Primary/Caucus?  Can you point to a time when you've criticised a candidate for doing so?

    Off topic: Are you the same 'Armando' who used to blog at Daily Kos?


    I let Jeralyn blog on that (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:13:25 PM EST
    as she kew the issues.

    I certainly doid not pooh pooh the Obama concerns.

    Now I am explaining why this spin tonight is objectionable to me.

    No I am not the Armando from Daily Kos.


    Let me see if (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:20:11 PM EST
    I can explain it for you.

    1. On the one hand, Obama has complained all week that the Clinton compaign is trying to disenfranchise people. What's more, his supporters are right now running around screaming that Clinton committed fraud.

    2. On the other hand he's now gloating that the Nevada system has disenfranchised voters in that Obama was awarded more delegates even though Clinton received more votes.

    See the problem?

    Those negative bloggers! (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:10:31 PM EST
    Why read if you find content irrelevant? (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:15:53 PM EST
    Obama won 11 of the 17 counties and (none / 0) (#19)
    by bronte17 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:13:13 PM EST
    Hillary is ahead by less than 500 votes in the entire state.

    She carried that 1 large county, Clark County, and that is her redemption.

    She won by 6000 plus votes (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:16:12 PM EST
    You are confusing the number of county delegates with the number of voters.

    Doesn't matter... she's ahead by 5% (none / 0) (#35)
    by bronte17 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:23:05 PM EST
    And one large county carried her. She is the establishment candidate with Harry Reid's son aiding her campaign.  

    Obama is gaining momentum. No matter what they throw at him.


    What? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:30:05 PM EST
    the votes do not matter now?

    yes, U guyess that is the logical extension of the Obama campaign's argument tonight.

    Un effing believable.


    Hey, don't try to spin it like that. (1.50 / 2) (#39)
    by bronte17 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:35:49 PM EST
    I'm not listening to this from you tonight.

    You are wrong to equate Obama's name with George Bush and, oh my gawd, to bestow upon Hillary the mantle of Al Gore.

    I did NOT say that votes do not matter.  It is a caucus with entirely different rules and parameters and you cannot equate a caucus to the Electoral College in this fashion. It is dishonest of you and you are better than that.


    You just said the votes do not matter (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:39:29 PM EST
    You wrote that. Not me.

    Replied previously. Was referring to stats (none / 0) (#114)
    by bronte17 on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 03:18:17 AM EST
    not voters.

    The "stats" (none / 0) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 09:44:48 AM EST
    are the votes.

    "Doesn't matter" refers to the stats (none / 0) (#112)
    by bronte17 on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 03:14:24 AM EST
    the statistical numbers... not disenfranchising voters.

    The numbers will come out and it is a 5% spread at this point in time with 98.07% of the votes counted.

    Less than 800 votes in Clark County separate Clinton from Obama, with only 582 difference overall.

    Obama won in 11 of the 17 counties (65%), and he lost 2 other counties by only 3 votes.  

    This was a very close race considering some polls had Clinton at 41% and Obama at 32% just a couple days ago.


    You are wrong on the numbers (none / 0) (#116)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 09:44:06 AM EST
    Simply wrong.

    Delegates is not voters.

    clinton won by at least 7000 votes.


    Man, You Just Don't Get It. (none / 0) (#118)
    by converse on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 11:10:32 AM EST
    This is a primary contest.  The candidate with the most DELEGATES wins.  Obama won the most DELEGATES.

    Even playing by the rules that Clinton-owned Dems set, Obama won the most DELEGATES.

    Get over yourself.  Learn to use real facts to make your arguments, not your made-up crap.


    Lets see. Clinton campaign is purportedly (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:19:31 PM EST
    behind the lawsuit against the caucuses at large.  Decision in lawsuit keeps those caucuses in place.  Clinton wins the at large caucuses.  

    How Many Of The Voters In The At Large (none / 0) (#102)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:17:59 PM EST
    precincts lived in those other counties? We will probably never know how the election would have shook out if they had not decided on at large precincts. Would Hillary have won those other counties? Would Obama have won if people could not get off to vote?

    All the different varibles in the Nevada caucuses just made it a very bad idea IMO.


    that's a good question (none / 0) (#105)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:47:30 PM EST
    since 7 of the 9 at large caucuses went for Hillary.

    question for Obama supporters (none / 0) (#25)
    by sammiemorris on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:16:14 PM EST
    how many were willing to say Obama BARELY won Iowa.. after all throw out the 38-30-29, and it was actually 16-15-14 in terms of delegates. (B-C-E) Edwards proudly claimed he was second place dismissing Clinton as if she was no longer in the race, despite the fact she won MORE delegates. Yet Hillary was gracious in her defeat. Never did she say, look I'm actually in second place after Iowa, or I actually have more superdelegates right now. She was gracious in defeat. Obama and his supporters on the other hand, are all about Obama. Forget democracy.  

    Are you serious? Forget democracy? (2.00 / 1) (#36)
    by bronte17 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:25:42 PM EST
    Hillary is the establishment candidate.  If she does win the election and serves for two terms... this nation will have 1/3 of its population that has never seen a president other than Bush or Clinton.


    Talk about a drain on democracy.


    Excuse Me (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by BDB on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:06:46 PM EST
    But I do not think you understand what democracy means.  Democracy means the people who vote decide the winner of an election.  That that selection might not make you or me or someone else happy, doesn't make it undemocratic.  

    Hillary got more votes in Nevada, giving her more delegates is the democratic thing to do.

    Deciding that those folks who voted for her don't deserve to have their votes counted because they voted "wrong" is undemocratic.


    Well, excuse me... coming through here (none / 0) (#113)
    by bronte17 on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 03:16:53 AM EST
    Thanks so much for the lesson in political science... I needed that.

    Talk about not seeing the bigger picture.


    Gee, (none / 0) (#103)
    by ghost2 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:34:17 PM EST
    You covered all your talking points in one go.  

    And sharazade... whoever you are (none / 0) (#115)
    by bronte17 on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 03:20:47 AM EST
    There was nothing trollish in my reply.

    You should leave a comment to counter my argument if you have an issue with facts.


    Good point Athyrio (none / 0) (#26)
    by talkingpoint on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:17:31 PM EST
     Athyrio, I could not have made a better point. Corporate america support Obama, because they know that their cronies would destroy him in November. Corporate america hate Hillary, because she will tear down their walls. IN HILLARY WE TRUST.

    This is a *primary* - a *caucus* (none / 0) (#38)
    by bronte17 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:33:06 PM EST
    and to call Obama "the Bush" to Hillary's "Gore" is to misconstrue the historical record on the REAL vote caging and disenfranchisement of so many minority voters.

    It's a cheap shot from you Armando.  This is NOT Bush vs Gore. It is a caucus with entirely different parameters and rules.

    Excuse me (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:38:27 PM EST
    This was NOT the week for this ridiculous and pathetic spin. that is my point.

    The CHEAP SHOT is all Obama's.


    ack (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by diplomatic on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:45:19 PM EST
    Whenever Obama has faced a loss or some adversity, it seems that his campaign's first instincts leave much to be desired.  Very tone-deaf and very ungracious.

    I am extremely mad right now that Markos could not allow even one moment of well deserved praise for Clinton.  Always has to sh** on her and give Obama a pass for much worse behavior.


    Please define "vote caging." (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:23:15 PM EST
    Here you go: (none / 0) (#100)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 09:27:18 PM EST
    Delegate count quite what Obama is spinning (none / 0) (#47)
    by BluestBlue on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:44:30 PM EST
    Discussion of the Nevada delegates on Hullabaloo, not as cut and dried as Obama would have you believe.

    dday says:
    P.S.S.S. OK, I just spoke with Jill Derby, the head of the Nevada State Democratic Party. Regarding the Obama claim that he'll actually get more delegates out of this, essentially that's spin. Derby said that the caucuses are an "expression of the support of Nevadans today." Around 11,000 delegates were elected today. That will be winnowed down at county conventions and eventually at the state convention in May to the 25 that will go to Denver for the DNC. In 2004, Kerry didn't win every delegate on Election Day, but most of the delegates that eventually went to the DNC were his. Once there's a presumptive nominee, the delegate numbers are subject to change. It's non-binding.

    Short Version (none / 0) (#58)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:00:56 PM EST
    that makes your head spin, the short version is that this was a beauty contest, and you can't project delegate numbers at this time.

    Shorter version (none / 0) (#104)
    by ghost2 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:42:15 PM EST
    Was the design of caucuses an April fool joke??

    No concession speech (none / 0) (#54)
    by NYMARJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:56:30 PM EST
    Also thought it odd that Obama left Nevada before the voting was over and made no concession speech leaving the cable channels to make the decision to not cover Hillary Clinton speaking to her supporters.  Did not think that was very gracious.

    Because (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:01:02 PM EST
    he's not conceding that getting fewer votes than the other candidate is a loss. It's only a loss in a democracy in which all votes are counted. He was against disenfranchisement before he was for it.

    To Captain Obama (none / 0) (#57)
    by talkingpoint on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:59:30 PM EST
       Obama knows that his ship is sinking, so he starts talking about delegates to give his supporters false hope, so that the contributions can keep coming in to keep him afloat.
       To Captain Obama,
                      Hey captain your ship is sinking, oh captain the tide is rough, oh captain, should we abandon ship, or should we stay on it and perish slow?

    Howard Wolfson on Jan. 15 (none / 0) (#64)
    by commissar on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:08:24 PM EST
    States - First Read - msnbc.com
    `This is not a battle for states -- this is about delegates,' said Howard Wolfson, Clinton's communications director. `We are past the point where any one state, no matter how important, will have a disproportionate impact relative to their delegate count on the  nominating process.'"

    And? (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:09:40 PM EST
    What does that have to do with who won Nevada?

    Would it be considered an irregularity (none / 0) (#68)
    by Satya1 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:10:08 PM EST
    If the supporters of one candidate attempted to close the doors or the caucus site 30 minutes early?


    I suppose (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:14:39 PM EST
    You must use hyperlinks please.

    I don't understand (none / 0) (#79)
    by Satya1 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:26:12 PM EST
    I provided a hyperlink (albeit a long URL).  I'll try again (sorry I've been up 20 straight hours):

    A diary at Daily Kos alleges a number of irregularites at caucuses including:

    No less than eight Obama captains (including myself) have reported that Clinton operatives tried to close the doors at 11:30--a full thirty minutes before the doors were supposed to close.  In some cases I am hearing they actually succeeded, and voters were turned away before more knowledgeable people could get there to reopen them.  

    urls must be in html format (none / 0) (#99)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 09:10:43 PM EST
    or they skew the site and I have to delete the entire comment. Use the link button at the top of the comment box to paste in your url.

    I'd prefer hyperlinks to something more (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:28:10 PM EST
    authoritative than a DK diary though.

    How about "some say" or (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by oldpro on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:40:45 PM EST
    "they say?"  n/t

    I would prefer to see this elsewhere also (none / 0) (#88)
    by Satya1 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:44:58 PM EST
    before I believe it.  The diary is fairly convincing and the Obama campaign is also relaying a similar story.  I'm betting the MSM is looking into it and videos are being gathered or shot as we speak.

    We'll get a better sense of the extent tomorrow.


    According to the state rules published, (none / 0) (#82)
    by Teresa on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:37:25 PM EST
    they were supposed to close at 11:30. TINS was corrected multiple times with links in that diary.

    sorry to sound dumb (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by athyrio on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:42:41 PM EST
    but who is TINS?

    I feel soooo smart, although I just figured (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:54:49 PM EST
    it out:  thereisnospoon is a diarist at DK

    totals (none / 0) (#73)
    by noodles on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:15:20 PM EST
    Current delegate plus super-delegate count:
    Clinton 210
    Obama 123
    Edwards 52
    Kucinich 1

    The Las Vegas Sun (none / 0) (#84)
    by athyrio on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:38:33 PM EST
    is claiming that Obama's claim isnt true as they dont chose delegates that way and don't even chose them until later in the year....I would post the link but I dont know how to do a hyperlink so sorry but go to Las Vegas Sun web site.....

    Is this (none / 0) (#90)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:47:43 PM EST
    the article you are referring to?

    CNN is spinning Hillary's way (none / 0) (#83)
    by Aaron on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:37:28 PM EST
    14 delegates for Hillary

    14 delegates for Obama

    But Nevada only has 25 actual delegates, their numbers include super delegates.

    CNN has repeatedly proven that they will do whatever is necessary to make sure Clinton gets the nomination.

    Hispanic voters are responsible for the Clinton win, "blew Obama away"

    Why did Hispanic voters go for Clinton?

    Some are making the correlation with income, but I think it's something else.

    Spit it out (5.00 / 5) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:38:44 PM EST
    Insulting (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by diplomatic on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:47:23 PM EST
    So Aaron....do you have (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by oldpro on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:06:28 PM EST
    another though similar handle over at DK...AaronBrown or AaronRBrown?...which you are using there to trash TalkLeft and its two main posters, BTD and Jeralyn....claimin they are both Hillary supporters and Obama bashers?

    Come out, come out...let's have some transparency here...


    He does (none / 0) (#106)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:50:59 PM EST
    and yes that's him.

    Thanks for the clarification. (none / 0) (#109)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:55:10 PM EST
    Thought so. Thanks. n/t (none / 0) (#110)
    by oldpro on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:17:09 AM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#92)
    by athyrio on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:04:23 PM EST
    yes it is thanks....

    Let Me See if I Get This Right (none / 0) (#95)
    by BDB on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:15:35 PM EST
    When Obama wins Iowa, it's the will of the people.

    When Hillary wins NH it's racism and she'd never be able to pull off a caucus.

    When Hillary wins the NV caucus, it doesn't matter because Obama got more delegates so who cares about what Nevadan Democrats want or, if that's proven incorrect (and I believe it is), then there was some sort of voter fraud by Teh Evil Hillary (unsubstantiated, of course).*

    That's pathetic and beneath who I thought - and still think - Obama is as a person and a candidate.  It, IMO, makes him seem desperate and honestly I don't think he should be yet.

    * Hey, I hate caucuses and Nevada seemed particularly not ready for prime time, but if one Democrat is going to make voter fraud allegations against another Democrat they better have proof and, no, I don't consider a Daily Kos post or diary to be proof.

    So, is Diebold a non-player in NV (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:31:29 PM EST
    conspiracy theories?

    Silliness and Spin (none / 0) (#97)
    by noodles on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 09:01:20 PM EST
    Maybe the reason for this silliness is because there are so many Democrats who absolutely hate the idea of Hillary as the Democratic party candidate. They hate the idea of dynasties and political families (Bush Clinton Clinton Bush Bush... Clinton Clinton... Jeb Jeb?). It's like we are some pathetic backwoods banana republic. Personally, I was disgusted when I read the ACLU report on Extraordinary Rendition and Bill Clinton's involvement. I am sick of it! Maybe we anti-Hillary Democrats are acting a little goofy but I desperately want a White House free of the taint of torture, extroidinary rendition, and support of the WBush war. Is that really too much to ask?

    Gee, I don't know (none / 0) (#111)
    by BDB on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 02:04:13 AM EST
    Is it too much to ask to have a nominee who does not buy into the Reagan mythology?  To have a nominee who runs as a fricking Democrat, trying to get Democratic votes in a Democratic primary?     To have a nominee who is trying to build a majority for progressive ideas and programs instead of for some movement centered around himself?

    Contrary to popular opinion, Obama's folks are not the only ones who feel strongly about this election.  Many of us may not spend our time talking about teh awesomeness that is Hillary Rodham Clinton and telling everyone how she is the second coming.  You know why?  Because none of these people are the second coming, not my candidate and not yours.  These are flawed politicians angling for the most powerful job on the planet (albeit more diminished after the last eight years).  But just because I don't think Clinton is going to change politics or transform America or transcend partisanship or whatever the BS du jour is, doesn't mean that I don't think she's the better choice for President.

    And if you think President Obama is never going to use extraordinary rendition or sell out to the coal companies or do something else immoral and wrong, then you're dreaming.  George Washington owned slaves.  Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.  Franklin Roosevelt ordered the interning of Japanese Americans.  Let's not pretend that Bill Clinton suffers from some moral taint so much greater than any other politician, including some of our best.

    So your sick of the Clintons?  I'm sick of everyone acting like they or their candidate is so much better than the Clintons.  They aren't.


    i just deleted a comment (none / 0) (#98)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 09:01:24 PM EST
    by a commenter who personally insulted the authors and commenters at this site. If the poster does it again, s/he will be banned.

    Clinton owned the Nevada Dems (none / 0) (#107)
    by converse on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:00:37 PM EST
    who decided how delegates would be apportioned.  Obama played the game with their rules and won.  After all, in a primary contest, the winner is the one with the most delegates.

    Can you say "duh", Hillary?

    patently false (none / 0) (#108)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:38:01 PM EST
    please don't spread information here by presenting your opinion as fact.

    Name One False Thing (none / 0) (#119)
    by converse on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 11:13:10 AM EST
    in that post.