Go Hilary, and I think Obama, Edwards, or Hilary could beat Romney in November, so, go Romney, I guess?!

At least it's not Fuckabee? Every time I see that guy, I think "you know what they say about the Spanish Inquisition..."

I caucused for Hillary. We beat Obama 80-62 at my precinct.

CNN says women and Latinos fueled the victory. I will confirm that there were a lot of Latinos and women on our side at my precinct. There were nine Edwards people, three came over to Hillary's side, the rest bounced. I expected to see a lot more Edwards people.

Completely not shocked about Romney - he's the only one who really campaigned there.

Not overly shocked about Clinton, either, though it was interesting to see the huge racial divide between her and Obama. Poor Edwards just can't get any respect.

Hops... the majority of conservatives around here are either hardcore libertarians (Paul) or Mormons (Romney).

I wasn't shocked either.

Can't say I'm shocked. Romney was definitely given a religious tip, and he actually campaigned in Nevada, unlike anyone other than Paul.

As for Clinton... I think it's interesting that all the media sources seem to announce she "won", but it's sort of misleading, in my opinion. She won the popular vote, from what I understand, but because of the way Nevada divides the delegates, she has one less than Obama. Since the delegates are [sadly] more important than the popular vote in these primaries, I think it might be more accurate to say that Obama won.
Here's a CNN link that mentions it. http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/19/nevada.sc.main/?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail

As for McCain in SC- I'm not overly pleased. While I would much rather have a president McCain than a president Huckabee, were it to come to that, I think he's far more likely to beat a Democrat than Huckabee is. Which is unfortunate, as I pretty much loathe the stances of the Republican party, and desire very much for a Democrat to win. I'm not saying McCain would beat the Dem, because I'm not sure he would, but he seems more viable than Huckabee or Romney in a general election. Just my thoughts.

While a woman candidate would generally be a good thing - I would be totally on-board a Christine Gregoire (Washington State) candidacy or Janet Napolitano (Arizona) candidacy - I am a anti-Hillary Democrat for two reasons:

[1] I do not like the idea of dynasties or political families. It is ridiculous to have Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, and then Clinton, Clinton. After that Jeb Jeb? It's like we are some goofy banana republic.

[2] I was disgusted to read the ACLU report on Extraordinary Rendition and Bill Clinton's involvement; using the CIA to kidnap and transport people to Egypt and Syria to be tortured. I want a White House free of any taint of torture, extraordinary rendition, or support for the WBush war. I would be happy with Obama, Edwards, or Kucinich.

ACLU Fact Sheet: Extraordinary Rendition
www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.html

===================

I completely agree with LlesbianLlama regarding McCain and SC. I believe he is probably the only Republican who has the chance to beat a Democrat, whether its Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. He appeals to the Independents as well which makes him a dangerous opponent, whereas it seems as if the other candidates are too polarizing.

All I can say is, I'm ridiculously excited to see how Super Tuesday turns out...maybe that makes me a huge geek, but that's okay! :)

"[1] I do not like the idea of dynasties or political families. It is ridiculous to have Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, and then Clinton, Clinton. After that Jeb Jeb? It's like we are some goofy banana republic."

I have to say, that's not the best reason to choose a candidate. You should be looking at where each candidate stands on issues compared your beliefs, not who they are married to or who their dad is. That's just as bad as voting FOR them because of who they are married to or who their dad is. It's reverse nepotism.

Also, being against Hil because of Bill's involvement in something? Did she ever say how she felt about this? Or are you just assuming her beliefs are the same as her husband's?

Liza, I agree with you completely! Well said.

Apparently even though Clinton won Nevada, Obama gets more delegates because of the rural areas that voted for him? Bummer.

Urgh. Not happy. Never mind Nevada, McCain took South Carolina. If he takes the Republican nomination - which now looks more than likely in my book - and Clinton takes it for the Democrats, I'm putting my $$ down on McCain. I have a hard time gaming political scenarios in which she beats him, and after all we've gone through with the Republicans over the last 25 years, that's sad. McCain will take most of the centrist/independent vote, which doesn't like Clinton, and she'll do the job of bringing out the Republican base, which REALLY doesn't like Clinton. Obama, on the other hand, would compete for the center and induce the Republican base, which doesn't loathe him and isn't nuts about McCain, to stay at home. Here's hoping Obama takes South Carolina to vault him into position for February 3rd, because nominating Clinton would be borderline political suicide for the Dems if McCain takes the Republican nomination.

Oh, and if Kate 21 will forgive me a postscript, it's entirely legitimate to conflate the record of Sen. Clinton with that of former President Clinton, because that's been a centerpiece of HER campaign. Every speech she makes she talks about her "experience" in the White House, how she's been "tested," referring to Clinton Administration accomplishments as things that "we" (she and Bill) did etc. I'm not necessarily saying that it wasn't the case, though I have no way of knowing how much influence she had over her husband's policies. Rather, it's not legitimate to confer upon her the mantle of experience and give her credit for all that was good about the Clinton years, and then harp about how she and her husband have different views every time a less-than-flattering historical fact comes up. If she gets to claim credit for the Clinton administration's successes, then she should be blamed for its failures. It's a two way street.

CNN is also reporting that apparently Obama has one more delegate from New Hampshire than Clinton does?

Also:

referring to Clinton Administration accomplishments as things that "we" (she and Bill) did etc.

On that note, I wonder what the deal is with her and the DOMA. I did read this: http://insomnia.livejournal.com/782665.html but I'm having a hard time finding out any more specific information about it than that.

i was set to comment on nevada when i noticed one of the "premium blogads" on the left side of the page. the one that caught my eye (and, i might add, stimulated my gag reflex) reads "hillary now! (obama later)".

interestingly, it also includes the line "ditch your sexism." why not ditch sexism AND racism? why, even if one supports hillary (i'm still deciding), the emphasis on obama later? a black feminist, i can say with great confidence that any statements that are supposedly in support of feminism yet simultaneously uphold other systems of oppression are not anything that i wish to ally myself with. i would hope that the maintainers of the blogs/websites i visit would think the same.

sidenote: i realize that the feministing itself may not necessarily control the content of the ads, but my comments also apply to many of the (veiled or blatantly racist) comments people have left in response to other caucus-related posts.

re: alicia,

As a black feminist as well, I didn't read "Hillary now, Obama later" as a racist statement or as a statement privileging ending sexism over ending racism. I read it as a statement of the feeling some people have that Obama would make a great presidential candidate with a few more years of experience. I don't think we should make the same mistake that so many people seem to be making of pitting race against gender and assuming that any statement that favors Clinton over Obama must be racist, or any statement that favors Obama over Clinton must be sexist. There are perfectly valid, non-racist, non-sexist reasons for voters to prefer one over the other.

"I read it as a statement of the feeling some people have that Obama would make a great presidential candidate with a few more years of experience."

If one reads the reasons behind that blog, the claim is simply that Sen. Clinton is more experienced, and that if she had been born a man, the nomination would be a given. The concept of gender vs. race is the topic of some posts, as in sexism is more acceptable (but not "worse") than racism in this campaign.

The NYT reports ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/us/politics/20nevada.html?hp ) "Vote of Women Propels Hillary." I really don't like the headline. They don't back it up with actual numbers, and the implication is, "men don't support Hillary." Sound like a very backhanded headline to me. The numbers they do report are that, "two thirds of African Americans voted for Obama," so why wasn't the headline, "Vote of African Americans Propels Obama?"

Also, they say that while Clinton won the popular vote, Obama won the most delegates.

I just looked over my post, and it's a real downer - I should have started with, Wow, this is a really nail-biting Democratic primary full of viable contenders all of whom I like, which is awesome!

Hillary won a decisive victory yesterday - a thumping of around 6%. The media barely mentioned it. MSNBC played about 20 seconds of her victory speech, yet they played the entire boring length of Thompson's lackluster 3rd place finish in SC and they played every word of Romney's NV victory speech.

I am disappointed in the way Obama is handling the loss. On his website, he is claiming delegate victory, disregarding the fact that no delegates are actually awarded right now. He has made himself "the decider." He has also not given a concession speech. I think lower of him now.

You didn't hear Clinton saying of Iowa, "Yeah, but Obama only won by 1 delegate..." Nor did she contest her 3rd place finish by pointing out that it was actually a 2nd place finish if one considers delegates.

Also, I'm sick of the rabid anti-hillary talk on the leftie blogs, equating her with bush, yammering on about "dynasties" and railing on in what is sometimes a very sexist manner about Hillary.

Given all of this opposition, I hope Hillary beats the pants off of them all!

Hype -- That's because he actually did win in terms of delegates, and I'm finding it a little weird myself that the media is playing it up like a Clinton win, even though it would technically be an Obama win if one were considering the votes that actually determine who is nominated. So I don't find it all that weird that he hasn't given a concession speech. I would find it tasteless though if he said that the popular vote was irrelevant, but as far as I know, he hasn't.

alicia -- I've seen that ad a few times myself, and even though it's probably pretty inocuous, it makes me a little nervous for the reasons you've said. Also, it seems like it's getting more and more difficult to be a feminist in support of Obama these days.

why wasn't the headline, "Vote of African Americans Propels Obama?"

Maybe because unlike women who made up a full 59% of caucus participants in Nevada, black voters are a small minority, and while minority support may be significant, it will not "propel" Obama, the way appealing to women in general will. News stories and headlines accurately note the need for and efforts of candidates to get the female vote. The Washington Post of 1/19/08 notes the contribution of the Latino community to Clinton's success in Nevada with the headline "Latino Community, Female Voters Push Clinton Over the Top" as well as references to unions (30% of caucus goers) and efforts of the Clinton campaign at "Las Vegas beauty salons." I guess Obama's "Clinton does not respect your people" message to hotel and casino workers did not work.

Also, the Post notes "more than 80 percent of black caucusgoers in Nevada went for Obama" and he still did not win, further demonstrating that support of women in general (mainstream whites) is much more important by their numbers, than support of minorities, as did the story "Female Voters Abandoning Clinton for Obama" with his Iowa win (CNS news, 1/7/08). It would be foolish of the Obama campaign to attempt to pit simple race against gender, or for him to target Latino service workers the way he did.

Speaking of isms, I wonder why everyone seems to refer to all of the male candidates by their last names while referring to Senator Clinton as "Hillary"?

All of Hillary's campaign material does just say "Hillary" not "Clinton."

In terms of people calling Hillary by her first name instead of Clinton, it's just the easiest way to distinguish her from her husband, who was, you know President for 8 years. Remember, during the 2000 election, people referred to George W Bush as "W", which was also the easiest way for people to refer specifically to the candidate without being confusing. Similarly, Hillary is trying to look less cold and calculating, and a first-name referral goes a long way.

I'd prefer Obama to win the primaries, simply because he has a better shot of getting independents and even moderate republicans on his side, especially if more right-wing candidates like Huckabee or Romney get the nom instead of McCain. Huckabee is a weird mix of socialism and evangelicalism that turns a lot of Republicans off.

In terms of policy, the three top Democratic leaders have very similar platforms, so electability is really the biggest factor in who to choose. Hillary is too polarizing in general--Republicans straight up HATE her in a way that doesn't apply to Obama.

Also, Fuckabee? Aren't we a little old for namecalling.

I think a reason Republicans are not spewing as much poison at Obama is because they want him to be the nominee. I know many believe that Hillary has less of a chance than Obama of winning against McCain, but I disagree. If I was Republican, I would want Obama to be the Dem nominee. How easy is it to point to his lack of experience, unproven record, and urge voters to vote for McCain, a likable, middle of the road seeming fella, with experience, a record, etc. Of course, the opposing argument that Hillary would be easier for McCain to beat is also valid.

Clinton & Obama's policies are relatively "similar," but not the same... As I sort of mentioned above, I've been hearing some things lately that lead me to believe that Obama would be much more supportive and friendly towards the gay community than Clinton. For instance, I recall hearing that at a debate (sorry I don't have a specific citation, ergh) Melissa Ethridge told Clinton that the gay community felt "thrown under a bus" by the DOMA, and Clinton told her that she doesn't think that's what happened at all but "respected her opinion." What kind of lame non-answer is that? I also recall hearing that Obama supported a full repeal of the DOMA whereas Clinton only supported a partial repeal (leaving in place, among other things, the section that gives states the right to ignore marriage licenses from other states). I had other reasons to like Obama, but this in particular seems like a major, major issue that is getting basically no attention at all...?

The_becca, perhaps we're not hearing more about the candidate's difference in opinion about the DOMA because it's only a major issue for the portion of the gay community that
a) actually wants a same-sex marraige and
b) wants to go from state to state with that marriage and thinks it's right to force other states to recognize that marriage.

Remember, the DOMA is more than just a gay rights issue, it's also a states' rights issue--to say that the people of Massachusetts can tell the people of Arkansas that they have to recognize a same-sex marriage goes against the principle of states rights, and thus, the issue isn't as cut and dry as one would think.

adambeezly,

"the people of Massachusetts can tell the people of Arkansas that they have to recognize a same-sex marriage goes against the principle of states rights"

Ummm...you're forgetting a little thing I like to call the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Constitution specifically took decisions like this away from individual states. Most states have different criteria for who can and cannot marry. It was the Full Faith and Credit Clause that required states to recognize inter-racial marriages even though many states had anti-miscegenation statutes. So if Illinois has to recognize the marriage of two 14 year olds from Alabama, explain to me why the states are not required to recognize gay marriages.

In short DOMA is unconstitutional and I won't support a candidate who would try to restrict the human rights and eviscerate the Constitution just to get elected by the centrists. P.S. I'm not a member of the gay community...so I guess this is a bigger issue than you think.

"Speaking of isms, I wonder why everyone seems to refer to all of the male candidates by their last names while referring to Senator Clinton as "Hillary"?"

Hillary herself does that. I can only assume it's to distinguish herself from her husband. When someone says "Clinton" the immediate image for most people is Bill. I think it's a good move on her part. It might help people who weren't fond of Clinton as President separate Hillary from Bill.

The final word on the Nevada Delegates issue:

**Clarification** of 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. Today, two out of three Nevadans who caucused chose a Democrat instead of a Republican for president. That is an overwhelming majority vote for a new direction. 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. That said, if the delegate preferences remain unchanged between now and April 2008, the calculations of national convention delegates being circulated by the Associated Press are correct. We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support."

This is going to be an unpopular thing to say but in response to people saying that racism and sexism are equally bad but that sexism is more accepted in our society:

Not even feminists can get behind a female candidate over a black candidate without people throwing out the "racist" word and Clinton supporters doubling back and adding justifications to their position and support.

I support Senator Clinton because she has EXPERIENCE, she is QUALIFIED, and because I am much more fond of her positions. I find her Health Care proposals MUCH more in line with my ideas and opinions compared to Obama's.

Obama is part of a VERY radical church and has said point blank that his "morals" and "concern for the poor" come DIRECTLY from his religion, suggesting that without which he wouldn't give a damn. I do not believe religion should play any role in politics and listening to his pastor/mentor speak of him and their religion, I threw up in my mouth a little.

This has NOTHING to do with race. I do not think Obama has the experience to lead this country decisively and make the changes it so sorely needs. I think he is a great speaker that appeals to younger voters because he speaks on their level and is energetic and enthusiastic. I do not feel he gives enough specifics and I do not feel that he has the experience to save this country.

Kristen: I was trying to answer the question at the end of the_becca's post, pointing out a subtlety in the issue that she might have missed. The constitutionality of the DOMA is beyond my knowledge in general, but again, I don't think things are so cut and dry.

Kate21: I'm curious to why you have such vitrol against Obama's religious background. Why should it matter if he got his egalitarian value system from religion, instead of some conscious, rational, atheistic choice that helping the poor is "good"? Where do you propose one's morality should come from?

AdamBeezly, the idea that morality comes from the fear of an eternal judgement as prescribed by a dogma is allot less appealing than someone who genuinely cares about doing good works - regardless of judgment or reward or because an ancient book tells them to. I understand that its unrealistic to expect a candidate to not be religious in this country, but when they base their entire world view on faith it opens up all kinds of reasons for making decisions based on personal faith.

The religious rant aside, he's spent a very limited time in politics and while he was a representative he spent very little time actually taking stances on important/controversial issues. I would be much more comfortable supporting him with a little more experience and more of a record to judge how he might actually behave as president.

"I was trying to answer the question at the end of the_becca's post, pointing out a subtlety in the issue that she might have missed. The constitutionality of the DOMA is beyond my knowledge in general, but again, I don't think things are so cut and dry."

Kristen is right- in other cases, such as a state recognizing the marriage of two people not old enough to be legally married in that state because they were married in a state where it is legal, no one cries about "states rights". Constitutionally, this is a VERY cut and dry issue, the only problem here being peoples' [including judges] fear and hatred of gay people and their subsequent denial of equal rights.
It's pretty sad when states like MA choose to bring in old laws originally written to deny equal rights to interracial couples in order to justify the denial of rights to same-sex couples. Back in the day, again, as Kristen pointed out, the Full Faith and Credit Clause forced states to recognize the legal unions granted to interracial couples, among other things. This is no different.
This is the clause:
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
While some people try to deliberately ignore its role in the marriage equality debate, it's pretty simple to see by reading it that it applies, and that it makes the denial of same sex marriages unconstitutional.
It is, of course, only one of MANY different ways of proving the constitutionality of same sex marriage.

My inner law student came out to play. :)

Kate21: Correct me if this is a false assumption, I would venture to say that you are not a religious person. That's okay, neither am I. However, to simplify religious basis for action into "judgment or reward or because an ancient book tells them to" discounts the immense power that "the religious feeling" has over many individuals and its capacity to motivate those individuals to do "good" things is something that is, in my experience, undervalued by most secular, well-educated, non-religious people (Including myself, until I began to immerse myself in religious theory).

I have no problem with someone who has religious feelings and I'm not in any place to say what they do or do not "feel" but I strongly believe that religion should NEVER EVER EVER be used to justify political action - good, bad or indifferent.

In a perfect word, discussing religion or God would be a banned topic on political debates. This has nothing to do with my personal beliefs or spirituality and everything to do with the concept that religion and politics should be completely and utterly seperate.

I mean, honestly, what basis is there for arguments against gay-marriage or comprehensive sexual education that don't stem from religious "morality". Personal opinions aside, policy, laws, and decisions should not be made based on religious doctrine.

Also, Fuckabee? Aren't we a little old for namecalling.

It's actually quite mild considering what I really think of that man. To say the least, his ego could take a few shots.

He thinks he has a direct pipeline to god that no one else has access to, as if God tells him something that he doesn't tell the rest of us because we're so unworthy. I distrust anyone who considers himself a prophet, and my distrust is intensified when that self importance is tied to sexism, homophobia and a desire for a theocracy.

The_becca, perhaps we're not hearing more about the candidate's difference in opinion about the DOMA because it's only a major issue for the portion of the gay community that
a) actually wants a same-sex marraige and
b) wants to go from state to state with that marriage and thinks it's right to force other states to recognize that marriage.

Remember, the DOMA is more than just a gay rights issue, it's also a states' rights issue--to say that the people of Massachusetts can tell the people of Arkansas that they have to recognize a same-sex marriage goes against the principle of states rights, and thus, the issue isn't as cut and dry as one would think.

The word I'm thinking of is "waaaaah," the noise of a crying baby. Oh no! One state might inadvertantly force another state to give people their rights to equal protection under the law. This must outweigh the rights of individuals to form the families of their choosing, and move freely about their home country.

Romney was definitely given a religious tip, and he actually campaigned in Nevada

Just wanted to say, anecdotally, that a friend of mine whose family is Mormon reports that all the Mormons he knows are very skeptical of Romney, despite his church affiliation. I haven't seen any national polls, but I think people on the religious right (even Mormons) see him as someone who's a faker on moral issues. So I'm not sure how much the "Mormon vote" helps him.

adambeezly wrote: "In terms of people calling Hillary by her first name instead of Clinton, it's just the easiest