Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 16, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

A Victory Lap for Obamacare




Paul Robeson: A Life


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Clinton Wins Nevada Amid Confusion Over Delegates

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jan 19, 2008
Hillary Clinton
washingtonpost.com

Hillary Clinton won more support among Nevada caucus-goers on Saturday, but the Obama campaign will likely end up with more actual delegates. Clinton drew significant support from Latino caucusers, despite a controversial lawsuit that was rejected by a court Thursday. Defended by both Hillary and Bill, the suit had tried to make it more difficult for casino workers, many of them Latino, to caucus.

It was thought that many casino workers would turn out to support Barack Obama because the state’s largest union, the culinary workers, had endorsed him. Ironically, Clinton cleaned up at the so-called at-large casino caucuses.

Ultimately the defeat of the lawsuit was the best thing that could have happened to Clinton’s campaign.

Delegates are awarded differently based on the size of precincts. Obama won more delegates overall, although the count won’t be official until county delegates elect state delegates who, in turn, elect national delegates. For more on caucus intricacies, read Bill Boyarsky’s take on the process.

Mitt Romney, the only Republican to put much of an effort into Nevada, won his party’s contest.


Washington Post:

Obama’s campaign argued that the outcome in Nevada was a shared victory and laid claim to 13 delegates, compared with 12 for Clinton, because of the way his support was distributed around the state. Obama aides also complained of what they said were voter-suppression tactics. “We’re not treating this as a loss,” said senior adviser David Axelrod. “We’ll keep letting them spin the victories, and we’ll keep taking the delegates.” Obama left the state without delivering a concession speech, and his campaign sent messages to supporters heralding the edge in delegates.

Clinton officials rejected the delegate claim out of hand, arguing that the count has not been finalized.

The debate over the details of delegate allotment reflected the growing intensity of the competition. After three contests in as many weeks, Clinton and Obama are still struggling for the upper hand in the race for the nomination, neither having gained sustained momentum as they have struggled through a series of fierce back-and-forths.

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By jeff in chicago, January 21, 2008 at 3:28 pm Link to this comment

The issue that isn’t big enough (to me) and about which I will not take a side is the first topic of that post: what Hillary said. She voted for a bill that had stuff in it she didn’t like. Happens all the time. Politicians of all stripes vote for imperfect bills in hopes of some benefit. I will not chastise any politician on either side for such an action. I completely agree with you that bankruptcy reform is an issue that needs to be dealt with.

I apologize for any confusion I may have added to the debate.

Report this

By Louise, January 21, 2008 at 2:30 pm Link to this comment

By Maani, January 21 at 12:29 pm #
(181 comments total)

Re: Bankruptcy reform ... “The best bill money can buy”

“Louise:
Now YOU are confusing the two bankruptcy bills. Obama could not have voted on the 2001 bill since he was not even in the Senate yet.  And Obama AND Hillary voted AGAINST the 2005 bill.”

***

Actually, I am not confusing the two. 

Obama was in the 109th Congress, and he DID vote against Bill S. 256 - Hillary did not vote.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/ roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote;= 00044

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (S. 256 As Amended ) 
Vote Number:  44 Vote Date:  March 10, 2005, 06:12 PM
Required For Majority:  1/2 Vote Result:  Bill Passed
Measure Number:  S. 256
Measure Title:  A bill to amend title 11 of the United States Code, and for other purposes.

Obama (D-IL), Nay
Clinton (D-NY), Not Voting

As first lady, Mrs. Clinton worked against the bill. She helped kill one version of it, then another version passed, which her husband vetoed. As a senator, in 2001, she voted for it, but it did not pass. When it came up again in 2005, she missed the vote because her husband was in the hospital, although she indicated she would have opposed it.

When the bill came up again in 2005, Mrs. Clinton missed the vote. But, she did vote against a procedural motion involving the bill and said that had she been present, she would have voted against the bill itself.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/clinton-and-the-bankruptcy-law/

Report this

By Maani, January 21, 2008 at 1:29 pm Link to this comment

Louise:

Now YOU are confusing the two bankruptcy bills. Obama could not have voted on the 2001 bill since he was not even in the Senate yet.  And Obama AND Hillary voted AGAINST the 2005 bill.

Peace.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, January 21, 2008 at 12:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The bankruptcy bills (taken in tandum) also removed State based interest rate caps..(Citibank is now charging up to 35% on some of it’s credit cards.)

removed the buyer protection clause (if you disagree with charges, or are defrauded your bank may issue a “charge-back” BUT the merchant may now refuse the charge-back and force you to go to court to get your money back.

There are many more provisions

Here are the Nays for 2005:
NAYs—-25
Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - Clinton (D-NY)

Here are the nays for 2001

Sam Brownback (R-Kan) N
Jon Corzine (D-NJ) N
Mark Dayton (D-Minn) N
Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn) N
Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill) N
Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis) N
Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) N
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) N
Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) N
John Kerry (D-Mass) N
Bill Nelson (D-Fla) N
Jack Reed (D-RI) N
John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WVa)
Sarbanes (D-Md) N
Paul Wellstone (D-Minn) N

Appears some D Senators had developed a bit of courage by 2005.

Report this

By Louise, January 21, 2008 at 12:15 pm Link to this comment

Obama DID vote. He voted Nay.
“Obama (D-IL), Nay”

“Clinton (D-NY), Not Voting”

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00044

Hillary and the bankruptcy bill:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/clinton-and-the-bankruptcy-law/

“said that had she been present, she would have voted against the bill itself.”

She did have an excuse though. Bill was in the hospital.

Obama vowed to change bankruptcy laws and cap interest rates during his campaign tour in Southern California. He has called for an exemption in the 2005 bankruptcy bill for people who can persuade a bankruptcy court that they filed for bankruptcy because of debts caused by medical expenses. Which documentation proves, is the biggest single reason people end up in bankruptcy.

[Single-payer health coverage would go a long way to eliminating that problem.]

Nice, but not enough. The privilege afforded the banks by the legislation ALSO needs to change.

Maybe the argument I need to start is why don’t ALL the democrat candidates step up with a comprehensive plan to reform that part of the current bankruptcy law which prevents judges from aiding those in default of their loans by restructuring their payments? And putting banks and lenders firmly under some control.

Here’s a MUST READ on the whys and wherefores of this lovely bill:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/6/63144/06015

Bankruptcy reform ... “The best bill money can buy”

Corporations can declare bankruptcy and gain protection from creditors whether the underlying reason was a genuine catastrophe or sheer mismanagement. Under the new law, consumers who face crushing debts because of genuine uncontrollable catastrophe (like a medical emergency) are denied the benefits of bankruptcy.

Individual citizens should be entitled to the same protections as large corporations.

We have moved a little beyond the 5th century ...

“If the debtor be insolvent to serve creditors, let his body be cut in pieces on the third market day. It may be cut into more or fewer pieces with impunity. Or, if his creditors consent to it, let him be sold to foreigners beyond the Tiber. —- Twelve Tables, Table III, 6 (ca. 450 B.C.)”

Now creditors carve up the debtor’s assets ... and thanks to the 2005 bill, creditors find it much easier to ensnare debtors in hopeless debt in the first place!

But this time, greed backfires

Nov. 8 (Bloomberg)—Washington Mutual Inc. got what it wanted in 2005: A revised bankruptcy code that no longer lets people walk away from credit card bills.

The largest U.S. savings and loan didn’t count on a housing recession. The new bankruptcy laws are helping drive foreclosures to a record as homeowners default on mortgages and struggle to pay credit card debts that might have been wiped out under the old code, said Jay Westbrook, a professor of business law at the University of Texas Law School in Austin and a former adviser to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

``Be careful what you wish for,’’ Westbrook said. ``They wanted to make sure that people kept paying their credit cards, and what they’re getting is more foreclosures.’’ 

Which brings me back to square one. Because, along with putting in place an almost guaranteed foreclosure vs. bankruptcy option for consumers in trouble. The revised bankruptcy law also put in place an opening for banks to use predatory loan practices to get those consumers in trouble in the first place.

Talk about a vicious circle.

Now, we’ll see many of those legislators and the president who had an eager hand in creating this mess pass emergency legislation to put a Band-Aid on the problem.

So in the end, the same folks who are suffering from this calamity will end up paying for it, again, because at some point in time it will be picked up by an increase in taxes. Just in time for the repubs, largely responsible, to blame the dems for the mess.

Report this

By Louise, January 21, 2008 at 12:04 pm Link to this comment

jeff in chicago

“I don’t find this a big enough issue to worry about, and I’m not going to take a side, but maybe it will help some of you engage your brain cells.”

Thanks for the reference, but it IS a big enough issue to worry about. The bankruptcy reform bill is a major contributor to the mess we’re in now. The candidates call for change, and Obama actually has introduced legislation to control predatory lending practices. But NONE of them have proposed legislation to CHANGE the bankruptcy reform bill, to reign in the banks and the credit card companies.

Please don’t make the mistake of believing just because mainstreammedia chooses not to see this as a serious issue, that it isn’t! This is something we the people need to make an issue, forcing the candidates to get serious about it! Particularly now that they are looking for a temporary fix to the bubble crisis!

There is no doubt Obama said Hillary said “Yes I did but I hoped it wouldn’t pass.” I assumed it came out of the previous debate. Apparently it didn’t. Perhaps it referred to something she said on the campaign trail.

Guess maybe I better ask Obama. smile

Report this

By Maani, January 21, 2008 at 9:40 am Link to this comment

All:

Take a deep breath…

I was wrong, and I apologize.  I was confusing the 2001 and 2005 bankruptcy bills.  Hillary did indeed vote for the 2001 bill, even according to the “vote bible” that I use (i.e., Project Vote Smart, which is a “mirror image” of the official Congressional voting record).

My bad.

Peace.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, January 21, 2008 at 9:27 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“So who’s the policy geek in this election?”

Dennis Kucinich

Report this

By jeff in chicago, January 21, 2008 at 8:04 am Link to this comment

Do none of you know how to search for things on the internet? It took me 5 seconds to find a complete transcript of the Nevada debate where this discussion occurred. Why do you all quote site commenting (and thus probably skewing) on the issue instead of looking for the actual words?

Oh…that’s right. Because if you don’t quote the actual words you can find something that conveniently fits your view. My bad.

Look here:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan/15/debate-transcript/

where you will find this:

RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, you voted for the same 2001 bankruptcy bill that Senator Edwards just said he was wrong about. After you did that, the Consumer Federation of America said that your reversal on that bill, voting for it, was the death knell for the opponents of the bill. Do you regret that vote?

CLINTON: Sure I do, but it never became law, as you know. It got tied up. It was a bill that had some things I agreed with and other things I didn’t agree with, and I was happy that it never became law. I opposed the 2005 bill as well.

—-

I don’t find this a big enough issue to worry about, and I’m not going to take a side, but maybe it will help some of you engage your brain cells.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, January 21, 2008 at 7:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“As for all the dither over delgates and electoral colleges, etc., it seems to me that an important point is missing.  If the electoral college were abolished - which I think many, if not most, of us believe it should be - and our country returned to a true “one person, one vote” system, then Hillary was the clear winner in Nevada.”

No, The rules governing the Democratic caucuses are set up by the Democratic party.  Part of the tweaking done in Nevada was to allow “minority candidates” a shot at overcoming prejudices. 

Now, I am in favor of one person one vote, but I am hesitant to suggest change as history has demonstrated a prevelance for tit for tat politics.  If you can change it for you, they can change it for them….

Better to learn how to use it….Like a Tip O’Neil.

Report this

By cyrena, January 21, 2008 at 4:18 am Link to this comment

So Maani,

It might be worth checking out my comment above, since I’ve learned that viewers of the debates did in fact HEAR HER SAY THIS.

Meantime, didn’t you watch the debates? I would somehow have imagined that you would have, yet you’re speculating here in saying this…

“...I’m inclined not to believe she said it - ....”

And then you go on to post yet another statistic from this website that you use as a bible, that would have us believe that NONE of them ever vote on ANYTHING. I mean, I know that they might not be present for some of these votes, but if we go by your little source of info, it would appear that neither Hillary or Barack are EVER present for any votes. And, that’s the part I’m not ‘inclined to believe’.

Now, I know there is an actual site somewhere, (I think it’s a gov. domain, that would (or should) actually tell the real deal on how everyone voted on anything that’s ever been put to a vote in any given Congressional session.

I’ve not been able to get it myself in the past several weeks, and I’m not entirely sure why. (Internet connection problems are part of the reason, but I suspect that’s not the ONLY reason).

So, I’ll keep trying. Meantime, it would appear that what you aren’t inclined to believe, actually was another piece of reality.

Report this

By P. T., January 21, 2008 at 12:24 am Link to this comment

“If the electoral college were abolished - which I think many, if not most, of us believe it should be - and our country returned to a true “one person, one vote” system, then Hillary was the clear winner in Nevada.”


When has our country had one person, one vote?  Your ignorance is appalling.

Report this

By cyrena, January 21, 2008 at 12:01 am Link to this comment

But, based on those I’ve spoken to, who actually DID watch the debates, (one of whom watched them in Nevada), she DID say it. To repeat, SHE SAID, that she voted for the bankruptcy bill, but “hoped” that it wouldn’t pass.

Now, I don’t know how well that sits with whatever this vote count it is that Maani relies upon so heavily.

But, if that ‘roster’ is correct, then Hillary is apparently having yet ANOTHER ‘senior momement” and if the thing is NOT correct, then maybe we shouldn’t use that as the ONLY source of how various reps have voted or not voted in Congress.

Report this

By Maani, January 20, 2008 at 11:01 pm Link to this comment

And if you had a brain, you’d be dangerous…LOL

Report this

By P. T., January 20, 2008 at 10:42 pm Link to this comment

If my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a baby carriage.

Report this

By Maani, January 20, 2008 at 9:01 pm Link to this comment

Re Hillary’s supposed statement, I’m inclined not to believe she said it - because she did NOT vote for the bankruptcy bill.  Her vote, like Obama’s, was “NV,” meaning she either wasn’t there, or was there and did not vote.  (You can easily find this out by going to Project Vote Smart and looking up their votes.)

As for all the dither over delgates and electoral colleges, etc., it seems to me that an important point is missing.  If the electoral college were abolished - which I think many, if not most, of us believe it should be - and our country returned to a true “one person, one vote” system, then Hillary was the clear winner in Nevada.

Peace.

Report this

By cyrena, January 20, 2008 at 7:42 pm Link to this comment

I didn’t watch the debates either Louise, so I didn’t hear her say this. Somehow, I’m not surprised, and yes, it is yet ANOTHER…W.T.F.? statement.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, January 20, 2008 at 3:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By Louise, January 20 at 1:15 pm #

“I heard Obama say that Hillary, when asked if she voted for the bankruptcy bill responded,

‘Yes I did. But I really hoped it wouldn’t pass.’

Now that is definitely a W.T. F. statement!

If you hope a BAD bill doesn’t pass, you vote AGAINST it!”

Unless you are a Clinton, then you say “...But I didn’t inhale.”

Report this

By Louise, January 20, 2008 at 2:15 pm Link to this comment

I posted this comment earlier, on another article and never received an answer. So once again, is this true?

“I heard Obama say that Hillary, when asked if she voted for the bankruptcy bill responded,

“Yes I did. But I really hoped it wouldn’t pass.”

Now that is definitely a W.T. F. statement!

If you hope a BAD bill doesn’t pass, you vote AGAINST it!

I didn’t watch the debate. Did she really say this? Sounds like something Bush would say!

If this is true, we absolutely can not have this person running the country for the next four years! Things are bad enough already!”

Needs to be mentioned. The so-called bankruptcy bill has contributed mightily to the current meltdown in the housing market. When a homeowner has no choice but to wait for foreclosure, everybody loses, except the original mortgage holder who can try and recover some of their losses through auction. Foreclosure delays the process by at least a year. Meanwhile nobody is getting any money. The shysters who bought the original mortgages and then turned them into commodities to be sold as speculative in the market deserve what ever they get, or don’t get. But just like the S&L;meltdown more than a decade ago, [remember Marvin?]the long term losers are the taxpayers who ultimately pay the bailout costs.

[Is it just my imagination, or does this behavior indicate a Bush problem? Seems to be an ongoing and recurring pattern.]

Which corporations lobbied for the bankruptcy bill. What are their ties to the donor corps supporting Hillary’s campaign? Anybody know? But even if there is no connection whatsoever. What kind of “representative” of the people votes for a BAD bill and excuses it by saying,
“But I really hoped it wouldn’t pass?”
Duh ...

Report this

By Kath cantarella, January 20, 2008 at 1:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I want it on the record that i have always firmly believed that one should always ALWAYS vote for the policy geek.

For example, in 2000 Gore was the policy geek, and Bush was the charisma. If Gore had been elected, my world would be in a lot better shape.

So who’s the policy geek in this election?

Report this

By felicity, January 20, 2008 at 12:22 pm Link to this comment

who comes out the declared winner of the early races - apparently not necessarily the winner - has a huge bearing on who ends up nominated. (Edwards spent almost 4 years campaigning in Iowa)

The media call a 2 percent difference in an election outcome “a huge sweep” for the ‘plus’ guy. The media and the Clintons parse Obama’s statement, “Reagan set the country on a different trajectory” as Obama is a Reagan Republican, sympathizer blah, blah, blah.

The media need the ratings which sensationalizing the news will benefit.  For the Clintons, ambition always trumps any principles they might have - such as telling the truth.

Report this

By jeff in chicago, January 20, 2008 at 11:04 am Link to this comment

Fine. I should have said “electoral college-type system.” The fact remains that Obama SHOULD get 13 delegates and Clinton SHOULD get 12. But those remaining 8 delegates could change everything, and we will not know who they support until April. (By the way, even the 9-9 tie in New Hampshire is misleading. New Hampshire also has 8 uncommitted delegates.)

If by “Obama won” you mean that the media have a need to declare something as decided - any many people, yourself included seem have the same need - then yes, Obama “won.”

Report this

By P. T., January 20, 2008 at 10:29 am Link to this comment

That’s the convention.  The electoral college applies to the general election.

As far as the January 19 Nevada Democratic contest goes, Obama won.  But he could lose later contests at different levels.

Report this

By jeff in chicago, January 20, 2008 at 10:05 am Link to this comment

The original story here states that Obama gets 13 delegates and Clinton 12. But the remaining 8 delegates are crucial. We will not know who “won” Nevada until those 8 delegates make a choice.

Report this

By jeff in chicago, January 20, 2008 at 10:01 am Link to this comment

I believe you are wrong. Look here for more details.

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/delegates/index.html

And I just found these details…

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/NV.html

...which state:

“On Jan. 19, party caucuses meet in each precinct to choose delegates to county conventions. The delegates selected are not bound to any candidate. At the county conventions on Feb. 23, delegates to the state convention are chosen. They are not bound to any candidate. The state convention is April 18-20, during which delegates choose 25 of the 33 delegates to the national convention. Sixteen of the 25 delegates are allocated proportionally to presidential candidates based on the support for the candidates in each of the state’s three Congressional districts. Nine delegates are allocated to candidates based on the support among all of the delegates attending the convention. The remaining eight unpledged delegates are chosen from party leaders.”

Convoluted? I sure think so.

Report this

By P. T., January 20, 2008 at 9:50 am Link to this comment

“The delegate division for Nevada won’t be decided until April. It’s an electoral college within the electoral college.”


No.  The electoral college is a feature of the general election, not the nomination contests.

Report this

By P. T., January 20, 2008 at 9:30 am Link to this comment

One can disagree on what is a fact.

Report this

By jeff in chicago, January 20, 2008 at 9:15 am Link to this comment

I suppose my bigger point, which I could have expressed better, was the flaws in the system. I cannot be convinced that the person who gets more votes should not get more delegates.

I live in Chicago. If I moved to Podunk, Nebraska, (no offense to the fine residents of Podunk) my vote should somehow have more or less value?

In addition, I frankly don’t know if Nevada’s delegates are obligated to vote for Candidate X. I do know that at the federal level delegates are not required to vote for candidate they “represent.”

And as unlikely as it may be, If Candidate X is discovered to have done some dastardly deed before the delegates are officially parceled out, those delegates could go to Candidate Y.

Hoping that most people who post to blogs like this are politically aware, I just wish posters would not declare as facts things that just aren’t so.

As I type that, it occurs to me that this election cycle has been so different - the eventual nominee has often been determined by now - my unlikely scenario described above could happen!

By the way: My candidate - Kucinich - has zero delegates. *sigh*

But it’s an exciting election, don’t ya think?

Report this

By P. T., January 20, 2008 at 8:57 am Link to this comment

I don’t know all the ins and outs of the delegate awarding process.  However, isn’t your point kind of hyper-technical, somewhat like saying we don’t know who won the general election until the electoral college votes?

Report this

By jeff in chicago, January 20, 2008 at 8:27 am Link to this comment

The delegate division for Nevada won’t be decided until April. It’s an electoral college within the electoral college. (And, IMHO, a mess within the mess that is the federal electoral college system, which I think should be abandoned. But that’s another issue.)

Technically speacking, the delegate race is a tie at the moment. Clinton and Obama both have 9. Edwards has 4. New Hampshire’s primary is the only one so far that determines actual delegates.

Michigan’s delegates were stripped because of trying to move the primary date. (And why hasn’t there been a story explaining how these delegates just disappear?)

Iowa also doesn’t start the process of awarding delegates until April.

What a screwy system we got here.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, January 20, 2008 at 6:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It is called “machine politics” and the Clintons own the machine…which is much of my reason for opposing them.

Report this

By Johnny Smith, January 20, 2008 at 5:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It would be like Gore claiming victory in 2000. Gore won the popular vote but Bush won the electoral vote. Can you imagine the newspapers claiming a Gore win in 2000?

Report this

By akc, January 20, 2008 at 2:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

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.

Report this

By a, January 20, 2008 at 1:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Both the chairwoman of the Nevada Democratic Party and a senior adviser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign are insisting that the contention that Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) won more delegates in today’s caucus is incorrect.

“The calculations of national convention delegates being circulated are based upon an assumption that delegate preferences will remain the same between now and April 2008,” said Jill Derby, the chairwoman of the state party. “We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support.”

Howard Wolfson, communications director for Clinton, echoed that sentiment. “Hillary Clinton won the Nevada Caucuses today by winning a majority of the delegates at stake,” he said. “The Obama campaign is wrong. Delegates for the national convention will not be determined until April 19.”

Report this

By cyrena, January 20, 2008 at 12:06 am Link to this comment

I should have added…not just the so-called MSM headlines, but this one as well.

Now, IF IT IS TRUE, that Obama won 13 delegates to Clinton’s 12, WHY does the headline say, “Hillary Clinton Wins Nevada”?

I mean, as if the whole farce isn’t confusing enough, especially to any citizen who doesn’t pay attention to these ‘rules’ or understand them worth a damn? (and…many do not).

Report this

By cyrena, January 20, 2008 at 12:02 am Link to this comment

And of course, if the rules mean anything at all, (specifically the number of actual delegates) then Obama won Nevada.

One wouldn’t know that however, by just a glance at any MSM headline.

Report this

By P. T., January 19, 2008 at 11:46 pm Link to this comment

Obama had fewer supporters than Clinton in the caucuses but won more delegates because of the structure of the rules.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.