So, slbk, Culinary should endorse nobody in one of the biggest political events in the state's history because... why? And the teachers' union is not neutral, their top ranks are filled with Clinton supporters, you know this. The timing of this lawsuit cannot be explained in any other fashion.

Heh, maybe Obama endorsers like Kerry, Napolitano, McCaskill, et al. should remain neutral too. Heck, Bill C. should remain on the sidelines for Hillary. I mean, nobody should be giving any candidate any support because they believe they're the best candidate, right?

So, Darryl, you're quoting Mike Gravel and implying that anyone who argues in support of Obama is a paid shill. I think you've made your character quite clear to everyone here over the last couple of days. I don't think you're doing the Clinton campaign any favors by sticking around here and posting this dreck.

As for the LVRJ, well, I don't think even Karl Rove would be so hostile. I expect that caucusgoers will completely ignore their "endorsement."

I'm not sure why people are so concerned about Obama in the general election here. He performs a lot better than Clinton against McCain (see the averaged polls at realclearpolitics.com... of course maybe after last night the Republicans will nominate someone less electable... we can hope.) John Edwards speaks a lot of hard truths, but he's just too angry for moderates to like him. Look at who has dominated the independent vote in the first two states. I like Obama's style; his conservative, understated approach to passing strong progressive legislation appeals to independents. And the man has excellent character and the good judgment not to try to pander by getting into a tank (Dukakis) or going hunting (Kerry). Thus far the Clintons have basically thrown the kitchen sink at him, and little of it has stuck.

The Republicans will go after everyone in the general - Edwards for his mansion, trial lawyer support, $400 haircut, and shifted positions. Obama for Rezko, his church, and of course they will trot out the Muslim smear. Clinton - well, there's enough from just 1992-2000 let alone anything the two of them have done since then. We need a candidate with the charisma to expose and brush off these attacks, and I believe that's Obama.

Caucuses are stupid for many, many reasons, but where was the Clinton campaign 9 months ago when it looked like Culinary might endorse them? And what is the point of this lawsuit but to suppress the turnout of union members? It's not like teachers will have a hard time voting on Saturday.

I'll pipe down if the Clintons stop distorting Obama's record. Hillary Clinton went on MTP and lied about his Iraq record, lied about his state senate record, and lied about her voter suppression efforts in NH and NV. There's a ridiculous amount to criticize even after you put aside the racial issues.

"Seed of Change," you can keep spamming but it doesn't make anyone believe any more of your lies. Clinton is lying about Obama's record on the war. In 2004, while supporting Kerry who voted for the war, he stated that things might have been different if he access to the NIE (which HILLARY DIDN'T READ), but that from his point of view the case for invading Iraq had not been made. He did vote to continue funding once we were in the mess, because what are you going to do, pull support from the troops? Clinton also lied again about his "present" votes in the senate yesterday. Those votes were either part of a broader legislative strategy (i.e. the votes on abortion were coordinated with Planned Parenthood in response to bills the Republicans were planning to use to smear democratic candidates), or they were protest votes for bills he supported in principle but thought were unconstitutional or badly written. Many times he was the only person to not vote "yes." That takes political courage. And I think it's clear to Nevada voters that Clinton is also lying about her little voter-suppression lawsuit.

But if the gloves are really off, then here are some things I can say about Clinton that are 100% true: Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, bimbo eruptions, Vince Foster, Travelgate, Whitewater, voted for the Iraq war, voted for the Iran resolution. How about that?

It's amazing what a little pro-Clinton echo chamber seems to have gotten going here. Obama would not have sued if Clinton got the union endorsement. Show me one time in this campaign where he has not played fair. Now it's down to people like "Darryl" lying about his record on Iraq and the state senate and engaging in ad hominem attacks. Come on people, you're better than to go for Clinton's Rovian tactics.

This nothing but a naked political grab by Clinton, using surrogates so she can keep it at arms length. If you thought this was so unfair, why not sue 9 months ago? And how exactly are teachers prevented from voting on Saturday? Seems like these sites are absolutely necessary to avoid disenfranchising Union members.

I hope any Union members thinking about voting for Clinton are paying attention to her attempts to suppress their vote.

Just a disgraceful lawsuit by Clinton, and Obama is right to call her on it. Where was this lawsuit 9 months ago when the rules were made up? Oh right, the union hadn't endorsed Obama at the time. So now you sue.

Darryl, you are outright lying about Obama's record just like every other Clinton shill. He has never been for the war. In 2004, while helping Kerry, who had voted for the war, he said that he might have voted differently if there was info in the NIE (the same one HILLARY DIDN'T READ), but that from his point of view the case had not been made. His present votes were either coordinated with the appropriate groups (e.g. planned parenthood) as part of a broader strategy, or were protest votes on bills he supported in principle but thought to be poorly written or unconstitutional. I've yet to see a Clintonista actually point to a vote that does not meet 1 of these 2 criteria.

Quit spamming the same comment on every blog. The good people of NV have the sense to see through this Rovian smokescreen.