I think Edwards will help Obama in South Carolina -- for obvious and rather sad reasons -- so I'm glad he's staying in the race. But I hope he gets out after that. He doesn't have a chance to get the nomination, and as much as the sports fan in me would like to see a brokered convention, I think it's more democratic to let the people decide than the guys with the cigars in hotel rooms.

Hey Charlie, reports are that Barack won 13 delegates in Nevada to Hillary's 12. I don't understand all the math, but it has to do with Barack's success in the rural areas where more delegates were spread out.

So if we won more delegates than any other candidate in Nevada, can't we say that Barack won?

Anyway, its all good. There are so many positives here for the Obama campaign that it is difficult to know where to start. First of all, Barack was not supposed to win here. He was over 20 points down in the polls weeks ago. But the Clinton machine thew everything in their playbook at Barack and he still had a strong showing. We saw a lawsuit, voter suppression tactics, daily slams and tirades by Bill C, ugly phone calls, closing at least one caucus one half hour early, etc.

And yet it appears that we are heading into South Carolina tied in the delegate count with Hillary, 37 to 37. That's pretty awesome.

And we won Washoe County! Yahoo! That's where my family and I worked along with many many other volunteers for a couple of days.

Lastly, you left off a couple of pretty impressive endorsements, including John Kerry AND Senator Pat Leahy of Vermont, well respected Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

So its all good!

I am wondering where Edwards goes from here with a very poor showing. It seems like the Hillary folks leaned on Bill Richardson pretty hard, perhaps getting him to drop out early so he wouldn't split the hispanic vote. As Edwards may be taking some of the anti-Hillary vote from Barack, I would like to see a graceful exit by Edwards in the near future.

Does anyone believe that Hillary Clinton could win a general election against McCain?

Some notes from one who's "on the ground" in Las Vegas...

Obama's campaign was the only one (from either party) to contact me, with a couple of robo-calls from Obama himself, as well as flyers on my door. Not that I'm thrilled to get robo-calls, but at least it's some kind of outreach.

Another note, in Nevada the Republican caucuses are limited only to those voters registered as Republican at least 30 days in advance of the caucus; the Democratic caucus allows voters to participate if they register as Democrats at the caucus itself. These rules would heavily favor a candidate with extra-party appeal on the Democratic side, as the only place for NAVs to go today was to the Democratic caucuses. I also received a direct personal call (not a robo-call) last night from a local person who said that even though he knew I was registered as NAV, it was still possible for me to participate in the Democratic caucus by registering on site the same day.

Point being, with a reasonably strong GOTV effort, including outreach to non-Democrats, and Obama's campaign putting in more effort than any other campaign to reach voters (at least, this voter) -- Obama still was unable to come up with the popular win. The comment above about Obama not being expected to win here -- perhaps a few weeks back that may have been the case, but with the strong union endorsements here, and obviously a strong organization, lately it was considered (at least locally) to be a very close race.

Which, of course, it was. Obama and Clinton both had strong showings. Point is, the lowered expectations spin game doesn't really fly for Obama in this case.

As for Edwards... that was a bit of a shock. Just a couple of months ago he was supposed to have the labor vote all but locked up here. How quickly things turn...

And as to the question of a Clinton/McCain showdown in November... of course she could win. But that would really be a test of which side's voters were least apathetic... both candidates are the sort that folks on either side would hold their noses to vote for just to keep the other party out of office. Neither excites their respective base. McCain probably would have an edge just because he'd be slightly more appealing to moderates/NAV, and he's not either a Clinton or a Bush so he's got that going for him.

Well Obama's campaign manager isn't calling it a win, but if you win more delegates in Nevada than Hillary, isn't that a win?

And David, thanks for your insight. I've read that the turnout was very low at those casinos. So the Culinary Union endorsement didn't seem to amount to much. Apparently all the negative garbage did have an effect.

In case anyone is interested in the dirty caucus tricks I was referring to, this is a good read.

No sour grapes here, but it sure is telling hearing these stories. People really need to think about what kind of campaign they get behind.

This is really disappointing, if it's true. UK newspapers operate more like U.S. papers about 100 years ago in terms of their customs on reporting, and Murdoch, who supports HRC owns the Sunday Times, so one always has to be a little skeptical:

Women turn on ‘traitor’ Oprah Winfrey for backing Barack Obama [Editor: link here.]

Nevada has a complex system of assigning convention delegates having to do with rural vs. urban. The distribution of the state delegates between Clinton and Obama meant that Obama wins 13 and Clinton 12. AP has confirmed that, despite the Clinton campaign protestations.

Regarding Clinton electability, McCain would beat her in Oregon and the Survey poll says that. The Clintons are not liked in Oregon and we're going to hear about Arkansas and Monica Lewinsky and not the Dem. policy agenda in the fall if she's the nominee. Her decision to run on his coat strings and put him front and center in the campaign guaranteed that. And if the Clintons keep up their campaign tactics and she is the nominee, I predict a divided party and a lot of Dems will walk or sit on their hands, including this life-long Dem. I've had it with the Clintons and I just think they are bad news for the country. Bill has destroyed his legacy with the African American and other communities. He should have stayed a philanthropist and stayed out of politics. There are too many reminders of the lies and corruption. I still think Obama has a shot in the long run though.

T.A. Barnhart posted:

"HRC would beat any of the Rs; she's by far my least favorite of the top 3 Dems, and she's so far ahead of anything they have. it would be tough, but we would make it happen."

Some might try, but as a matter of conscience, I can't vote for her. Her values and mine are too far apart, and while I've never failed to vote Democrat in an election (and have been voting since 1980), there's always a first time. That doesn't mean I'd vote GOP, but Hillary won't get my vote. I doubt I'm alone among Democrats in taking that stance, but time will tell. Obviously, if the GOP nominated a loon like Huckabee, I could conceivably rethink this, but I much prefer McCain as a human being and would consider voting for him before I'd vote for her.

(And this is from someone who has marched against the Iraq War on various occasions, so I don't make the last statement lightly. If only Elizabeth Edwards were running against Obama for the nomination, I'd be on Cloud Nine!)

My question about Clinton's electability was of course rhetorical.

As a Republican speechwriter said this morning, the only thing that will unite the Republican Party is Hillary Clinton.

Additionally, if Clinton is the nominee, Bloomberg might enter the race and spend a billion dollars; and that's not exaggerating what he said he would spend.

To the Hillary Clinton supporters out there: are you comfortable with the political dynasty that has become the American presidency? So what you're looking for is to complete the circle? Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton?

How much longer will the "Hillary as victim" trope be effective? Yes, there are many bigots who will never vote for a woman. Nevertheless, the notion that somehow Clinton is the poor victimized underdog that everyone is picking on is a joke. Yes, the poor Wellsley grad whose husband was the president and who is now a US Senator. Poor poor Hillary.

If Democrats want to lose the presidency AGAIN in 2008, then support Clinton.

I don't think Hillary is terribly electable and nor do I care for her as a politician, but I think Democrats should stop thinking about "electability" and start voting for the candidate they think would be the best President. The "electability" crap gave us Kerry, when we should have had Edwards.

Frankly, I think Edwards is now the most electable, but Obama would make the best President. He can do the best job of selling progressive changes to the entire nation -- and we'll need the critical mass of the nation (not just of the Democrats) -- to implement any truly significant changes.

"i find it hard to understand what happened to Edwards."

I can read between the (lack of) lines and sound-bites to discern with simple logic what has happened to Edwards. During the NH debates, which were hosted by corporate owned and supported MSM, Edwards clearly said his answer to the crisis of low and middle income Americans would be to bring legislation that would remove the strangle-hold big biz and their lobbies have on our democracy. That was precisely when the networks, where so many Americans still get their "truth" and information, stopped reporting on John Edwards. He's been banished to the MSM wilderness.

Edwards is the only candidate refusing money from PACs. (I find that so brave.) We might hope his policies would not be swayed by previously purchased obligations and vote for him. And therefore he's a danger to the party that currently controls Congress...the Money Party. And because he's not taking PAC money, he has less money and thus less visibility than his competition.

Edwards is perhaps the most glaring story-of-ommission by MSM, but only one of hundreds....check out projectcensored.org for some real eye openers. BTW, Walter Cronkite recommends this website so of course no need to worry about logging onto some sorta loony-moony-conspiracy-theory site. Unless you think the NSA really is tracking internet truth-seekers, searching for evidence of un-American activity....er, I think they are officially calling it terrorism these days.

Thanks Mathew Sutton for the link to KOS. Our political process has been thoroughly corrupted. I suspect the entire process, as well as the Catch 22 of striving for true campaign finance reform while those who have benefitted from PAC contributions are holding office and voting the yeas or nays on the matter.

hillary as the dem candidate is the ONLY wat the republicans stay in office. McCain beats her and many dems stay home. The NAV vote goes to McCain 2 to 1 over Hillary.

Obama is such an unknown. My concern is he becomes another Carter. Long on promise and desire; way short on delivery and actual accomplishment.

Let's face it, Edwards got more press coverage when his wife revealed she was fighting cancer again. Sad state of journalism. Ha. Maybe he could get an endorsement from Britney Spears to get the attention of the press.

Chris,

<h2>As an attorney, I fully appreciate your point about the importance of nominating the best possible judges. That is one of a number of reasons why I would be inclined to vote for Hillary if she's the nominee. But the reasons against doing so are simply too compelling for me to ignore. I'm going to trust my gut on this one. Hopefully, Barack will get the nomination and this dilemma won't arise. If it does, and if McCain is nominated, Hillary should consider herself fortunate if folks like me simply write in someone -- perhaps the loser of the Merkley, Novick battle (both of whom I prefer to McCain or Hillary).</h2>