Print
E-mail
Share
delicious
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitter
Here's the response out of Hillary Clinton's camp:
Today we won a huge victory by overcoming institutional hurdles and one of the worst negative ads in recent memory. This was a victory for all those who work hard and caucused on behalf of Hillary to revive our struggling economy.
The day after our victory in New Hampshire, the Culinary workers endorsed Senator Obama. The Chicago Tribune noted at the time that the endorsement gave Senator Obama a “significant advantage” because it is the largest and best organized labor group in the state. With nine caucus sites essentially set up for members of the Culinary union, it’s no wonder why Jon Ralston, Nevada’s leading political analyst, noted that the Culinary Workers’ “impact is going to be significant.”
In fact, the endorsement was so coveted that the Obama campaign’s national field director, Temo Figueroa, said over the summer that "The Nevada election is going to come down to: Whoever gets the endorsement of the Culinary Workers Union, more than likely, is going to win Nevada."
Our campaign also received numerous reports of strong arm tactics designed to discourage our voters from caucusing and found itself on the receiving end of one of the most scurrilous smear efforts in recent memory.
Additionally, Senator Obama's allies spent tens of thousands of dollars on a radio ad to attack Senator Clinton’s commitment to the Latino community. "Hillary Clinton does not respect our people," the ad said in Spanish. "Hillary Clinton is shameless."
And yet the exit polls are showing that the supporters of Hillary Clinton rejected these tactics. Exit polls show she won the union vote, won across all income groups and won heavily among those around Las Vegas, sweeping Clark County. The Latino vote backed Hillary by over 3 to 1, and Democrats voted for her by a wide margin.
Even among the hotel caucuses that were set up and worked extensively by the Culinary workers, Hillary competed closely or won in all of them.
So as we said yesterday, this was a test of whether the voters would win out through a process that gave significant institutional advantages to Hillary’s opponent.
Today, Nevadans won and made their voices heard.
You go girl!!!!!!!!
Hillary rules, Barack Hussein drools.
Hillary 08!!
<3
Madam President does have a nice ring to it!
PEOPLE IN NEVADA REFUSED TO BE BULLIED INTO VOTING FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S CHOICE! WAY TO GO NEVADA! HILLARY CLINTON PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.A.!
P.S.
Thank you Las Vegas Sun. You rock! I know my comments have been crazy some times, but being a die hard fan, well, thanks for putting up with me!
And thank you for your support of Hillary Clinton.
M'WAH!
Hillary 08!
Congrats; well deserved! GA for Clinton! Make that USA...
A surprise that some Nevadans would choose old establishment Bush-Clinton politics over a truly outstanding candidate for president. They may find they regret this missed opportunity to support a candidate who appeals to all ages and parties. I'm not sure the Democratic party can stomach the continuation of the old Washington status quo.
Want some Whine to swallow that bitter pill, Kathryn?
Hang on, let me call the WAaaaaaaaammmmmmmbulance!
Hillary 08!
immature girly-girl,
I'm not bitter, just sad for the Democrats. Crying is Hillary's thing, not mine. (gloating is yours)
you are short on thinking skills if you think that such very narrow wins are reflective of clinton's broard support. on the contrary, it spells trouble for clinton on the national scene. obama is the one getting momentum by substantially reducing the huge deficits in every single state so far by bringing in new voters. obama was never the front-runner, hillary has always been the front-runner due her marriage to a former president. but the media would not make such conclusion because they would love to witness the political drama of the century with clinton as the national nominee. after all, such a nominee is a dream come true for the drama-driven media.
first of all, she has had a 20-point lead all year long. the people that voted for her were not won over, these are the same hard-core supporters that made up their minds more than a year ago. if someone won over voters, it is obama; for he moves from a 20-point lead deficit to a narrow loss. if that means anything, it means that hillary is incapable of winning over new and undecided voters; and in contrast obama is quite capable of doing just that. to be able to come so close against an established whashington politician with bill clinton as a co-candidate, it means that hillary would be a very weak national contender, and obama a very strong national contender.
there is another factor that you have failed to take into account, that is the Edwards factor.
The overwhelming majority of edwards voters supports obama as a second choice. so, it is the selfishness of edwards that is helping hillary here.
if edwards were to leave the race just two days before nevada, hillary would have lost by a large margin. remember, she is the establishment, narrow wins against a fresh face without double-agency of bill-and-hillary is not reflective of broard support.
also, it is no coincidence that negative ads work better in states with fewer college graduates.
This is the crux of the problem -- the Clinton Campaign cannot even be gracious in victory --
It is not enough to win -- they have to pummel, distort and stretch truths --
A former President goes into kitchens and caucus rooms - Hillary Clinton was 25 pt ahead a month ago
I am personally disappointed Obama did not win but there is only one delegate difference in the numbers --
As someone said better than me today - it just depends if the public is fed up enough with the Clintons before the nomination is announced --
Of course they will certainly be fed up enough with them by the general election
and that dear fellow democrats - is the cause for concern
one of the silliest arguments made by the supporters of the co-presidential candidate( hillary clinton) is that Obama should wait his turn.
while hillary claims that the presidency is not a game, her supporters do think that is is some kind of game where one should wait one's turn. it is as if the presidency is some trivial line in the post office in which whoever is ahead in the political line of washington should be selected without questions. "wait your turn" has been their loudest rallying cry, but yet one of their many silly arguments.
it is as if hillary has an unlienable right to be president on the mere basis of seniority in washington hard-ball politics.
to see how silly is the argument, just think about the following:
among the list of democratic contenders, chris dodd is ahead in that so-called experience-line, followed by joe bidden who himself is followed by richardson, who himself is followed by kuchinich, who is himself is followed by hillary.
in that washington-based experience-line, hillary would be fifth in line, so hillary's turn would be in 32 years( 4*8). so, if obama's turn should come in 2016, then one could use that silly argument to claim that hillary's co-presidency should come in 2040.
of course, this descontruction of their silly arguments would be dismissed by intellectually dishonest people such as walden9.
hillary is indeed very experienced, but in failed attempts and blunders.
1) she signed the patriot act, but claimed she did not read it; therefore did not realize how overreaching it would be.
a)reality: she is supposed to be hands-on and experienced, but she would sign important and crucial documents without reading them.
b)potential problem: without reading them, hillary would sign bad treaties with unfortunate and potentially irreversible consequences for American economy and security.
to Girly Girl
whoever Kathyrn is - she wrote a civil post --
can you not be civil?
Your candidate won - enjoy it tonight--- tomorrow is amother day
2) foreign policy expert?
she would blame obama for asserting that he would act militarily in the presence of pakistani passivity to deter any Alqueda threat if given actionable intelligence that would save american lives.
a) reality: she would commit the ultimate foreign policy blunder by attempting to interfere in the internal investigation into the assassination of a foreign national by claming that the world should reject any results put forward by the pakistani government. in doing so, hillary undermined a reliable american ally, and unintentionally took the side of radicals intent on using bhutto's assassition to take over. by hailing bhutto as a modern heroine, our so-called expert on foreign policy failed to realize that it was that same former prime minister who was the only head of state to officially recognize the taliban, also under whom pakistani engineer khan spread nuclear technology to rogue states. by undermining the pakistani government, hillary unknowingly boldened islamic fundamentalists who are banking on a chaotic pakistan to create an islamic state there in the image of the taliban.
potential problem: she would make those mistakes ON DAY ONE for as always she is ready to repeat the past ON DAY ONE!!!
3) vote to brand the iranian revolutioary guard a terrorist group:
a)hillary did not learn from history. she gave the same administration the same inch as in the case of iraq that would lead to a mile.
by voting this way, she gave the administration an excuse to come up with another WMD( Willingness to Manipulate and Destroy).
b) conclusion: she has failed to realize that such a branding would increase tension between us and iran; and it would also symbolically embolden AL-QUEDA by giving it a false sense of being in the company of a relatively strong revolutionat guard. why it is a false sense? because al-queda considers shia and iranians to be infidels, and therefore there cannot be any real connection between them. but they would have no problem accepting the symbolic value of such a company.
arrogance?
calling obama arrogant, but hillary initially asserted that she is in to win it. she assumed just because minorities voted for her husband, they would also blindly vote for her.
"the receiving end of one of the most scurrilous smear efforts in recent memory"
Recent memory stretches back to Clinton's advertising calling Obama a "rookie", his campaign "a fairy tale", falsely claiming him "soft on abortion rights", referring to him doing drugs in the 'hood (like Bill did).
Yuck.
Congrats, Hillary
On running the ugliest most divisive campaign in history.
We can do better than Hillary and her racialy divisive supporters. Barack has a real message for the country, and we dont have to wait around for the Democrats to realize it.
CONVINCE OBAMA TO RUN AS AN INDEPENDENT IF HILLARY WINS THE NOMINATION. HE HAS THE MONEY, THE ORGANIZATION AND THE SUPPORT. HOW WOULD HILLARY STAND UP AGAINST REPUBLICANS IF BARRACK RUNS AS AN INDEPENDENT.
SEND A STRONG MESSAGE TO THE CLINTONS THAT LIES, RACIAL DIVIDING, VOTER SUPPRESSION, AND UGLY SMEAR POLITICS WILL HAVE A CONSEQUENCE.
WRITE TO HIS ELECTION NOW AND ENCOURAGE THEM, SO HE KNOWS THAT HIS SUPPORTERS WOULD SUPPORT HIM AS AN INDEPENDENT.
IF YOU WOULD SUPPORT OBAMA'S RUN FOR PRESIDENT AS AN INDEPENDENT IN THE GENERAL ELECTION, WRITE TO THEM NOW AND TELL THEM!!!!! JUST SEND AN EMAIL http://www.barackobama.com/
Obama2008
obama actually got more delegates in nevada because he did better overall in the state of nevada than in highly concentrated areas around las vegas.
remember the gap is less than 5-percent after substancial distortion of obama's record, and subliminal negative ads.
yet, the party recognizes that doing good overall is better than doing great in a few places and very bad in a lot of other places.
that is the case of hillary, she only has pocketed support built over her husband's popularity; her narrow win is not reflective of cross-over support; that is the reason that with her narrow win, she still gets less delegates than obama in nevada.
the smart people that designed this caucus arithmetic recognized that pocketed supports do not win national elections, but cross-over appeal does.
so, it makes sense to consider overall performance within a particular state. the logic here is similar to college graduation standards: one does not get to graduate because one gets a few A's in a few courses while flunking everyrhing else.
all the statistics suggest big trouble for hillary in any national race because she has no cross-over appeal.
now imagine hillary with the same level of experience without a popular former president as a husband. where would she stand in the polls?
girly girl, your attempt to insinuate a link between obama's middle name and that of the late dictator of iraq is ridiculous. in fact, you may not know that, but that same middlename is also that of the late king of jordan who married an american woman, and remained a loyal american friend until his death, and also was the first arab leader to recognize the state of israel. his name was king hussein of jordan!!!
For those who take the time to understand the issue over the culinary union and "at large" precincts they will see that it was fundamentally unfair the way it was set up from the beginnig.
Workers at the casinos were given a privilege denied to thousands of other workers that could not attend the caucus because they had to work. In addition the votes for at large precincts carried almost 4 times the weight in delegates as all other precincts. This is manifestly unfair, un-equal, and un-democratic. The fact that it was made into a racial issue by the Obama Campaign and the Culinary union is really disgraceful,
The vitriol i see coming from the Obama supporters toward Hillary is really unjustified and disheartening. In the end it will ultimately undermined the ability to defeat the republicans. Tell me, why should Hillary supporters want to support Obama given all of the personal attacks against her. We need to rise above this for the sake of winning in November.
zb
Obama’s official statement
By Sun Staff · January 19, 2008 · 4:10 PM
Here’s the response out of Barack Obama’s camp:
“We’re proud of the campaign we ran in Nevada. We came from over twenty-five points behind to win more national convention delegates than Hillary Clinton because we performed well all across the state, including rural areas where Democrats have traditionally struggled. The reason is because tens of thousands of Nevadans came out to say that they’re tired of business-as-usual in Washington and ready for a President who can bring this country together, take on the lobbyists and special interests, and end the politics of saying and doing whatever it takes to win an election. It is the kind of politics that feeds our cynicism and distracts us from taking on the real challenges facing America – an economy that’s left working families struggling, a broken health care system, and a war in Iraq that must end.
“We ran an honest, uplifting campaign in Nevada that focused on the real problems Americans are facing, a campaign that appealed to people’s hopes instead of their fears. That’s the campaign we’ll take to South Carolina and across America in the weeks to come, and that’s how we will truly bring about the change this country is hungry for.”
don't worry guys, Barack Hussein will win in Hawaii!
Don't worry, Hillary's race-fear tactics, divisive politics, and smear tactics will come to fruition.
You reap what you sow, and watch how the republicans will use that against her.
After all, its not bush they will be touting this time, but probably Mccain.
OBAMA, PLEASE RUN AS AN INDEPENDENT IF SCARY HILLARY GETS THE NOMINATION. SO MANY DEMOCRATS WILL FOLLOW YOU!
It's been real.
most posts on these blogs are by mean-spirited Obama backers - so get a clue, and Kathryn you sound very self righteous - I hope election day is missed by your types...go read a book.