Obama Won More Delegates Than Clinton In Nevada?

Obama Campaign Cries Foul

Ah, democracy at work. Hillary Clinton was the clear preference of a plurality of Nevada Democrats, but Barack Obama won more delegates -- 13, to Clinton's 12, Obama's campaign says.

What's a win? The Obama campaign is trying to spin Nevada as a dirty win for the Clintons. (You can imagine this line from Obama: "Do you want dirty politics? Then vote for Hillary If you want honest politics, vote for me.")

Alternatively, they're going to point out that the Clinton campaign has said many times that the nomination is, at its roots, a delegate contest. The idea here is that Obama did well outside of Clark County and in the rural areas of the state.

Obama received the same number of delegates in New Hampshire as Clinton. But Clinton has more "superdelegates" on board and an overall delegate lead.

Comments

Did Bill Clinton write this for you Marc? I can smell the contempt a mile away.

Posted by Tom | January 19, 2008 6:22 PM

well, wait a second. she won a clear plurality of state delegates. whether or not that means she won a clear plurality of the actual vote has yet to be determined. (not that it counts--it's just interesting.) the caucus math, esp. in NV, is really kind of crazy.

Posted by along | January 19, 2008 6:45 PM

Everything that Barack Obama and his (Adolph Hitler look alike) campaign manager David Axelrod do is so reminiscent of Obama's cousin Raila Odinga and the Orange Democratic Movement in Kenya.

Odinga refuses to accept the election results where he lost the popular vote but actually won more seats. He has launched a post election campaign over "voting irregularities" that has resulted in the death of close to 1,000 Kenyans, the displacment of 300,000, and totally crippled the economy. Plus Odinga says he has just begun his fight.

Posted by robert ethan | January 19, 2008 6:59 PM

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.

If 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.

Posted by dday | January 19, 2008 7:01 PM

Ah, yes. Compare Obama to a Kenyan despot and his campaign manager to Hitler. So glad to see that the Clinton supporters continue to appeal to people's best side.

Seriously, I know Mr. Ethan doesn't speak for Clinton, but is there any doubt by now that the Clinton strategy is a Rovian attempt to polarize the electorate and hope they wind up on the side with 51 percent. Instead of bringing people together, they want to drive a wedge between blacks and whites and blacks and Latinos. How that's going to help them in the general election (should they get that far) is a mystery to me. I guess they don't really care.

Posted by Fred App | January 19, 2008 7:03 PM

Odinga and Hitler were both individuals who took their fight to the streets when they could not win a popular vote. I would hate for that to happen in America.

Posted by robert ethan | January 19, 2008 7:15 PM

question for obama supporters

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.

Posted by holdingsteady | January 19, 2008 7:28 PM

Obama's campaign can't come out and say we came up short? They lost the day, the battle, the contest, the vote. The close delegate count is like arguing which pitcher had a better outing after your team loses because hillary got the w.
It is sad when you think you have a movement and that movement doesn't move enough people.
The dean folks are now the obama folks and they are incredulous we don't all agree with them.

Posted by Michael C. | January 19, 2008 7:38 PM

What a lot of unpleasant people on this blog. Particularly Robert Ethan, nasty little worm.

Posted by h1000 | January 19, 2008 7:54 PM

Nevada changes the contours of the game, given Hillary's strong showing with Hispanics.

I've done an analysis on what Obama would need to do in the rest of the states to hang on and win. I broke it down state by state, delegate by delegate in an excel spreadsheet. Check it out:

http://electopundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/democratic-delegate-race.html

Posted by ElectoPundit | January 19, 2008 7:55 PM

Hillary was gracious in defeat in Iowa? She never once mentioned Obama's name, never once congratulated him on his victory. And in the following days, she and Bill spent a lot of time complaining about how unfair the caucus process was, how it disenfranchised women, and how the New Hampshire primary was unfair because it was held too soon. Funny how those concerns about New Hampshire disappeared once they won, just like their complaints about the at-large caucus sites in Nevada disappeared when they won those. Apparently, something is unfair only if the Clintons can't win it.

Posted by Harlan S. | January 19, 2008 7:57 PM

The close delegate count is like arguing which pitcher had a better outing after your team loses because hillary got the w.

Actually, it's more like arguing that you lost the popular vote but you won the electoral vote. You know, the one that actually matters.

And kudos to holdingsteady, who managed to work in the words "superdelegates" and "democracy" into the same paragraph.

Finally, keep it up, robert ethan, each foul word that spews forth from your keyboard drives another thousand voters away from Hillary.

Posted by Tractarian | January 19, 2008 7:58 PM

"Odinga refuses to accept the election results.. that has resulted in the death of close to 1,000 Kenyans, the displacment of 300,000, and totally crippled the economy" Be sure to remember that it is the government who is not allowing protests and shooting demonstrators with live ammo, not Odinga. It's all great to call someone a whiner until the truth comes out. Clinton is driving a wedge through this country and most impressional people in this country are falling for it, because they simply won't do some basic research.

Posted by matt vs | January 19, 2008 7:59 PM

Hillary did congratulate Senator Obama after Iowa. Did you hear her talk about delegates at all in that speech? Did she claim second place over Edwards? NOPE. Obama is a sore loser. No concession speech, no acknowledgement of getting trounced in the popular vote.
Obama is a sell out.

Posted by obamaisasellout | January 19, 2008 8:04 PM

Hillary was gracious in her defeat? Last I looked she appropriated Obama's message, launched an all out smear campaign on him, equated Obama with a possible resurgence of terrorism, and then cried over the prospect of him winning the nomination. Then, not content to win the next primary, she created a race debate that polarized voters and brought to the table issues that should have never been issues while Bill Clinton did his best to publically distort Obama's record and history.

But if the Clinton supporters have proven anything to me it's that they have short memories and don't really pay attention to what's actually happening.

Posted by Joe G | January 19, 2008 8:29 PM

The Clintons will splinter the Democratic Party. Actually I don't think there is any depth to which this slimy pair running for joint office won't reach for if it helps them come out on top. Part of me wishes for an Obama-Edwards ticket announced right now to put this shady dynasty and their peculiar curse on the Democrats out in the wilderness where they belong.

Posted by Martin | January 19, 2008 9:01 PM

Hillary is the same old divisive candidate of the past. She can't do well outside of the big cities. Obama won by huge margins in places like Elko and Carson City. That's worth considering. I think that this is a split result and doesn't do anything to change the nature of the contest.

Next week, South Carolina will vote. Obama is the likely winner there. Then it's Super Tuesday. What people aren't talking about is the fact that 3 national polls show the election tightening in the past week. Obama is now within the margin of error. It appears that his white support has held while Clinton's black support has totally eroded. Also of note, a California poll that confirmed that trend, showing Obama down by 4 or 5.

So this is what I see happening: Obama wins the south and midwest plus Massachusetts and Delaware (Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Illinois, Missouri, Georgia, Alabama). Clinton wins the northeast and interior west plus Arkansas and Oklahoma. (NY, NJ, CT, CO AZ, NM). Obama wins by a bigger margin in Illinois than Clinton wins by in New York. They basically split California and its delegates (

Then the 2-9 and 2-12 states happen (NE, LA, MD, VA, DC) all of which set up extremely well for Obama. He sweeps all of them and breaks the tie. The result is ratified by Ohio and Texas on March 4th, when a nominee will finally be chosen.

There's a desire for the early states to decide this because that's what they did in 2000 and 2004. But each candidate has enough support to keep going for another month. And each will win and each will lose. There's a fair chance that because of the proportional allocation rules of the party combined with the rule that a candidate must get 2250 votes to win the nomination (hard to do without MI and FL counting) that nobody gets a majority and this thing becomes a floor fight. It'll be an interesting year...

Posted by The Bag of Health and Politics | January 19, 2008 9:11 PM

Obama campaigned for months suggesting that Hillary was a liar and part of the problem in washington. He lied over and over saying that she was for the war: He is way more sophisticated than to believe that. But it is an election and people trot out strategies and that was his.
I like the guy a lot but I like the clintons even more.
Asked about his inexperience on Meet the press he trots out a quote from MLK JR. about the urgency of now: was king talking about experience? no, King was talking about how America and black America and the movement and civil rights and justice could not wait patiently: that is remarkably different context but Obama hides behind King's phrase as if was a real answer to
the electorate's concern that he may not have the chops yet. Is that the transparency Barack is saying that he will inject into this country's politic?
You may disagree that Obama is not ready or that he has mislead people in his campaign but recognise that other people who care just as deeply about the country and the future as you do don't think he's ready and that Hillary is ready.
Have the empathy to understand that many people vote for the clintons because we believe in them not because we are cynical weasels or racists trying to deny someone thier dreams. We get that people believe in him but that doesn't mean we have to fall in line.
I will celebrate his win next november if he can get there, if hillary can't but Believe deeply in her campaign

Posted by Michael C. | January 19, 2008 9:13 PM

Michael C.-
It should be very obvious that Hillary Clinton will be defeated in Novemeber in the general election. Just look at her behavior since Iowa: a huge turnoff to countless members of her own party.

In Obama, for once the dems have a young progressive candidate that could win. It is very discouraging for myself to see old-line democrats displaying increcible short-sightendness nominating yet another loser in Hillary Clinton.

Posted by Jim B. | January 19, 2008 10:31 PM

robert ethan:

congrats dude. You just called a behind-the-scenes guy for a rather happy-feel campaign for the American Democratic primary Hitler-esque, and you stuck the landing on the false-syllogism that said guy will cause mass violence in the streets.

For hard work like that, not only will your ticket to Hell be hand-delivered, but it's being upgraded to first class as we speak.

For a Clinton supporter, you really go out of your way to give me reason to ditch HRC. Good job!

Posted by chris | January 19, 2008 10:50 PM

Hillary supporters really need to get over the fact that the majority of us don't know what she said in Iowa because we can't bear to listen to her for longer than is absolutely necessary. It's not really that much fun.

Yes, we know we are madly behind Obama. Who's madly behind Hillary? Maybe Bill, but even that seems debatable.

Posted by Jake | January 19, 2008 10:54 PM

Mr. Ethan's comments are totally out of line. Considering the tone of each candidate's campaign, I'm pretty sure who he supports. For those supporters of Mrs. Clinton still amenable to reason, y'all should think long and hard about this nasty scorched earth campaign your candidate is running. I'm done with the Democratic party if that woman is the nominee. I will not vote for her, I will not volunteer for her, and I am almost convinced to work for her opponent. I have voted for a Republican once in my life, and that was in an open Republican primary where I voted for the craziest candidate I could find. I've devoted months of my life to Democratic candidates both before and after I was eligible to vote. I give money to Democratic candidates.

But I will not vote for Hillary. I will not volunteer for Hillary. I will not donate money to Hillary. I cannot support her nasty campaign and the horrible tactics of her supporters. I know primaries are not some sort of love-in, but the actions of her and her surrogates make it clear the only thing that is important to Mrs. Clinton is Mrs. Clinton.

Posted by James Hare | January 19, 2008 11:28 PM

And James point is why the Republican Party won today. McCain isn't that scary to many Democrats, and many of us (including myself) will vote for him rather than be forced to endure 8 more years of the Clintons controlling our party.

Andrew Sullivan says that McCain might be forced to put Huckabee on the ticket to satisfy evangelicals. He seems to imply that in so doing that he'll alienate corporate Republicans and cause a perfect storm for a third party candidate.

I don't think that's true. I don't think Bloomberg can get any traction with McCain in the general election. And I also think that McCain will be wise enough to select JC Watts for Vice President. Watts is a former Baptist Preacher (keeps evangelicals happy) and he's pro-business. Further, it splits the black vote.

What Clinton has done in order to try to wrest the nomination from Obama is despicable, and has turned off many in the African American community. She has basically said that she doesn't think Obama is qualified to be President. How she can pivot from that to putting him on the ticket (at this point the only thing that might unify a very divided party) is unknown). There is one other statewide elected official who is black (Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts and he's been in office less than a year). The only other black Democrat that she could choose as a running mate is Jim Clyburn.

But if she picks Bayh or Richardson, she'll have sown the seeds of the black vote at least sitting out the election, and if Watts is on the ticket voting Republican. McCain could win all 50 states in November.

Posted by The Bag Of Health and Politics | January 19, 2008 11:52 PM

Nevada changes things a bit for the Democratic Race.Hillary Clinton is presumably the front runner,and her position appears stronger than it actually is,given that she actually got less delegates from Nevada.
She is projected to loose in South Carolina,It is too close to call now.
Camp Obama seem to be pretty organised and are matching the well oiled and funded Clinton machine pound for pound.
Everyone forgets that she was supposed to be whitewashing Obama and have double digit leads by now.
The Republicans Karl et al are more scared of Obama as a Democratic candidate,that says it all

Posted by David Howard | January 20, 2008 12:31 AM

If Hillary is the nominee, this Democrat will either jump ship and vote Republican (depending on their nominee)(something I never would have done in the past)or not vote for President at all and vote only for down-ballot peeps and measures.

Posted by Tickle | January 20, 2008 12:49 AM

What is going on here? I am a political junky, I watch msnbc/cnn/fox (when I want to gag). Clinton won! Obama did not. Simple. Try to stay focused, or we will have another GW Bush in the white house. The Clintons are not slimy, they dare not say much, because the press jumps on it and makes a story were there is none. The country was in pretty darn good shape when Bill Clinton was president. Now we are a joke around the world, we import all our goods. And our money is devalued all over the world.

Posted by ihatenoone | January 20, 2008 12:58 AM

What is going on here? I am a political junky, I watch msnbc/cnn/fox (when I want to gag). Clinton won! Obama did not. Simple. Try to stay focused, or we will have another GW Bush in the white house. The Clintons are not slimy, they dare not say much, because the press jumps on it and makes a story were there is none. The country was in pretty darn good shape when Bill Clinton was president. Now we are a joke around the world, we import all our goods. And our money is devalued all over the world.

Posted by ihatenoone | January 20, 2008 12:58 AM

Um, does Obama's claim of victory because they won more pledged delegates sound a lot like Bush in 2000? Yes, Obama sounds exactly like Bush! He needs to be very careful if he ignores the popular will of the people of Nevada - a clear majority, no less - in the vote.

Posted by proxli | January 20, 2008 1:45 AM

Marc et al,

Most of the give-and-take regarding Obama & Hillary supporters on this site are in good taste, even though they can get quite heated at times. Some comments, however, are beyond the pale and have no place in a dignified and respectable forum such as this.

Do you have a policy for dealing the type of comments that are both absurd and destructive?
If yes, barr this "robert ethan" fool.
If not, everyone else on this site shouldn't spend the energy to actually respond to his vile expression - it takes too much time and focus away from the good stuff that is otherwise so prevalent here.

I very much support civil liberties and the free exchange of ideas, but when you're hosting a dinner party and an unfortunate misanthrope shows up who destroys the conversation and insults all your guests, you politely ask him to play nicely with the others, or you escort him to the door.

Robert, please pay nicely. Or leave.

Posted by aeli | January 20, 2008 2:13 AM

I don't trust her. It's that simple. I didn't trust her intentions when she started crying right before the New Hampshire Primary. The first thing that came to mind was that she was pulling something. My feelings were vindicated by many others who felt the same way.
I'm also getting very tired of hearing the same words at each debate; "I've been doing this for 35 years! I've got experience!" Well, she hasn't been doing this for 35 years, at least not in government. Granted, as an attorney she did champion some lofty causes. She's helped lots of people in her life. I give her that. But to say Obama doesn't have any experience? While she was doing her thing in Arkansas, Obama was doing his thing in Chicago. He has no experience?
Obama was a community organizer in South Chicago and that ain't just handing out donuts and coffee at a church social. This is southside, baby, and he was successful. He thought he could do more as a state senator and won the first time he ran, and he was successful. He though he could do more if he were elected to the U.S. Senate. He was elected the first time he ran and he was successful. By Clinton's own admission, Obama has been a beacon of hope for many.
I say the only experience he lacks is the kind that creates the cronyism that is rampant in D.C. and that hasn't worked well for a long time. I see that cronyism in Hillary. She accuses him of not being a salty enough dog. He was salty enough to take on one of the roughest parts of one of the roughest cities in the country and he made positive change happen.
Now Hillary, with her husband running disruptive, misrepresentations about Obama right before the primaries tells me that the Clintons will do whatever they need to to win.
Just to set the record straight - I started out voting for Clinton. But then I got wise.

Posted by ISeeHillary'sUnderbelly | January 20, 2008 3:33 AM

A joke:

One day, an esteemed Republican Senator was walking up the steps of the Capitol Building, and on the steps was a little boy with a box full of furry little puppies that he was giving away.
When the Senator stopped to look at the puppies, the little boy said, "These are genuine Republican puppies, sir. They're free to a good home."
"Well" said the senator. "I'll have to check with the wife, but if you'll be here tomorrow I may take one of those puppies off your hands." And with that the Senator went about his business.
The following morning, the Senator found the boy with his box of puppies and agreed to take one.
"These are genuine Democrat puppies, sir," the boy assured him.
"I thought you said, yesterday, that these were genuine Republican puppies," inquired the Senator.
And the boy said, "Ya, but today their eyes are open."

Posted by ISeeHillary'sUnderbelly | January 20, 2008 3:45 AM

To Proxli:

Uh, Bush won the presidency.

Also, it seems that the popular vote doesn't mean much, anymore. Remember who got the popular vote in 2000?

Break this stuff down, my friend.

Posted by ISeeHillary'sUnderbelly | January 20, 2008 3:59 AM

Obama campaign cries foul? Like his "cousin" Odinga in Kenya. It's a good thing he is in America otherwise Hilary's supporters would have been in trouble, like what Odinga is doing to Kibaki's supporters in Kenya. Obama belongs to a group calling themselves Luo Americans check http://www.luoamerican.com

Posted by Jane K | January 20, 2008 7:40 AM

To James hare and the other Hillary Haters:
the process is going on now: everyone gets a vote: you get yours and I get mine. You can give any number of ways, work for whomever you choose to work for. But to come here and tell Hillary supporters that if we don't let go of Hillary and our support for her candidacy you won't work for her and won't give to her campaign and won't vote for her: what a cheap petty self-centered attitude: vote the way you want to vote. The party doesn't just do your bidding. Are you going to cry too? Are you going to hold your breath until I vote the way you want me to vote? Is it just your football and you are going to take it home?
Vote for or against who you choose to. Don't vote if that's your choice. Write in Nader if it makes you feel better. You can even vote for yourself.
To those who think McCain can win? He's 72 years old going on 73 at election time: he is unelectable and gets more unelectable every day.
America is never going to elect another retiree like Reagan: senility is too scary a possibility.
Everyone gets that an 81 year old (his age after 8 years) cannot be the best person for the job and cannot manage change.
Do you remember Dole? he was too old too. America eventually pointed that out.
AND the 58 percent of the electorate that are female will not vote this very anti-abortion geritol guy in.

Posted by Michael C. | January 20, 2008 11:06 AM

Jane K, is that drooling, rambling nonsense supposed to mean something?

Posted by Pug | January 20, 2008 12:34 PM

I live in California and my friends come from a wide variety of backgrounds and have an even wider variety of political views. More are Democrat than Republican, but in general, I know people from every corner of the political map.

One thing I'm quite aware of though is that I know many people whose votes change when posed with a Hillary wins the Democratic nomination scenario. A majority of Democrats I know (not all, but more than half) would vote for Obama, Edwards, Richardson, etc. over any Republican candidate, but when Hillary is on the ticket, they say they would switch to the Republican candidate (unless an evangelical such as Huckabee were to win the Republican nomination).

Additionally, most independents, Libertarians, as well as the Republicans I know seem more passionate about voting against Hillary if she's on the ticket come November, regardless of who is opposing her. The polarization she creates is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

She emanates this "you are with her or you are against her at all costs" attitude among the vast majority of people. This tends to cause concern among a good deal of rank-and-file, mainstream Democrats. In my opinion, none of the other Democratic canididates seem to raise this amount of contention among such a large percentage of the entire voting base in the country. And although Hillary's supporters are strong-willed, I'm not sure they would have the numbers in November when I think the anti-Hillary people are probably going to be coming out of the woodwork.

I'm a San Francisco Giants fan and this for/against massive polarization that Hillary creates reminds me of how I answer a "What baseball team do you like?" question... I always answer "My favorite team is the Giants, and my second favorite team is whoever is playing against the Dodgers." If you get my drift...

Posted by Antipolarization | January 20, 2008 2:00 PM

Hillary is polarizing to people of both genders because she is a woman of strength with strong views. As a society , we are not used to women like her and much more comfortable with the motherly type. I have seen it in the work place - a woman in charge evokes strong feelings when she exerts authority. Hillary is therefore maligned by many who "think" they know why they feel so negatively toward her . They assign these reactions to what they think are faults of Hillary. That's why so often when someone is asked why they don't like Hillary the answer is, " I don't know. I just don't like her." Some day the glass ceiling will shatter- the sooner the better.

Posted by ej | January 20, 2008 7:10 PM

Dear antipolarization:
The trick with Hillary's supporters is that they have heard anti-clinton trash for 16 years and it hasn't lessened our trust and faith a bit so why should this new wave of "you better not pick her cause all my friends hate her" nonsense matter?e they and your friends are allowed in our country to vote the way they want. Lots of us don't even bother listening to the clinton haters because they are really pretty crazy after 16 years. I was at my father in law's house tonight. 10 people in the room. His wife is a bigger fan of Hillary than I am. We just laugh when he's not around. "No one is going to vote for her", he says. I will move to canada he says. But everyone in the room is going to vote for Hillary: he just refuses to believe it and we don't talk about it with him.
The clinton's might not win this time but your funny logic about the people you think you know might have holes in it.
Women have gone into voting booths and voted for who they wanted to vote for since 1920, and so have the rest of us. You say she can't win but maybe she can do it.
Enjoy your vote: I can't wait to see what happens.

Posted by Michael C. | January 20, 2008 7:56 PM

Jane K,

The site luoamerican.com belongs to me, another American of Luo descent. I am also a USAF veteran and a conservative Republican. I've been blogging for four and a half years.

Your bigotry is noted.

Posted by baldilocks | January 20, 2008 10:43 PM

I disagree with ej's logic. I personally don't believe Hillary's polarization issue has as much to do with her gender as it has to do with her personality. She simply is not that likable. Although positions on major issues make up a good portion of how a person votes for/against candidates, there is something to be said of how likable a person is.

The likability factor is important for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that how a person comes across may affect their ability to negotiate effectively (i.e. how well of an international diplomat they are, or how well they would do in ending congressional gridlock through compromise). Not that the job is easy for anyone, but I just don't see Hillary doing well in that role.

Regardless, it's an interesting proposition - which Democratic candidate offers the best chance to win a general election against a McCain/Giuliani/Romney candidate? Not that pundits know everything, but from reading a number of different political columns, it seems as though the general consensus now (after Obama won Iowa) is that Obama would have a better chance than Hillary at winning in a general election. I think even some Hillary supporters would have to admit that Obama doesn't come with nearly as much built-in baggage/disdain as Hillary among Republicans.

I wouldn't be surprised if some people on the Republican side (such as some special interest groups) attempted to undermine the Obama campaign in the primaries so they wouldn't have to face him. Currently, they have much more negative campaign ammo to aim directly at Hillary. I've seen a handful of Republican strategists even admit to pulling for Hillary in the primaries on political talk shows.

Personally, I'm a registered Libertarian and I'm not entirely thrilled with any of the candidates in either party. I'm just an interested observer.

Actually, I have a question. Does anyone know whether there is a rule in either/both main parties against declaring a Pres/VP ticket at this point in the primaries? A 2nd and 3rd place candidate combo may be able to combine and bring them over the top against the 1st place candidate. The most obvious would be Obama/Edwards due to Edwards musings about comparing himself to Obama and contrasting both him and Obama against Hillary. Their combined poll numbers would seem to be able to overcome whatever numbers Hillary could pull. There is not quite as simple of a combo on the Republican side. If there is no specific rule against it, then I would imagine that it must be egos that get in the way (i.e. no one wants to admit that they are willing to be second fiddle)... I mean anyone who has aspirations to be President I guess, by definition, would have to have at least some ego.

Posted by Antipolarization | January 21, 2008 2:17 AM

Dear mr or Miss antipolarization;
you sound like every hillary hater I ever met:
Can't the two of them join up now to defeat her?
You insist its not her you hate, just everybody else. You insist you don't like any of them but then suggest two of them team up against the other.
You say its not a gender thing but then you want the men.
You say that you think even us hillary supporters would have to admit... that you study it closely... that you have it figured out...
everyone gets an opinion but gosh remember people are voting for Hillary, they do support the clintons, their books are best sellers, that we've heard all this anti-clinton they are the anti-christ no one will ever vote for them stuff before: why should we believe you?
The problem with Chris Matthews and Andrew sullivan being so "chuffed" about Obama and so nasty to Hillary is that it makes the rest of this blogosphere think this is normal or astute: these are rabid clinton haters and the hate is not normal: its not okay to say your candidate is like rove and like nixon but we have a real alternative for you: we don't believe that.
We are voting for hillary at least in part because rabid libertarians and the crazy third party types seem delusional to us. Dean and perot and Anderson and Jerry brown and Obama are all the same trying to tap into your anger. Don't you think some of us see through that?

Posted by Michael C. | January 21, 2008 10:31 AM

Obamas people have been running a dirty campaign
here in Nevada and by the sounds of the reports
from other states too. It's the Dem. parties fault. No security whats so ever. Many of our Clinton people will vote for McCain.

Posted by Anthony Rheingans | March 4, 2008 8:26 PM

Obamas people have been running a dirty campaign
here in Nevada and by the sounds of the reports
from other states too. It's the Dem. parties fault. No security whats so ever. Many of our Clinton people will vote for McCain.

Posted by Anthony Rheingans | March 4, 2008 8:26 PM