The Clinton campaign is strategizing ways to persuade undecided superdelegates to back the former first lady for the Democratic presidential nomination and is laying the ground work for a public campaign to woo them to her side.

Clinton Campaign Chairman Terry McAuliffe denied any public effort to lobby undecided superdelegates is currently contemplated. But numerous sources inside the campaign and sympathetic to it told FOX News that a battle plan is being put together to use any and all possible resources to lobby superdelegates.

Among the ideas under regular discussion is to carry out public rallies, use direct mail and television spots in order to generate broader public support for undecided superdelegates to side with Clinton.

Part of the argument the Clinton campaign will use in this and every other outreach to superdelegates will be that the race is very close in terms of delegates and popular votes.

Clinton touched on this theme Tuesday night, citing the closeness of the race and the “he wins one, she wins one” nature of the campaign.

The other big selling point, also hit by Clinton tonight, is “to count all the votes.”

This is a reference to Michigan and Florida, which Clinton said shouldn’t be left out of delegate calculations, as they are now due to Democratic National Committee sanctions. Clinton said the nominee shouldn’t be chosen “by 48 states.”

After Barack Obama’s speech in San Antonio (after he lost Ohio but before he knew he lost the primary in Texas), his chief strategist David Axelrod spoke briefly to The Bourbon Room about the outcome of Super Tuesday Part II and the campaign ahead.

Here is the transcript:

First The Bourbon Room asked how Obama’s camp would deal with the perception that Clinton has slowed Obama’s momentum and fought herself back into the race:

“Well, that’s a perception that they’re spinning, but they set their own test. It’s not our delegate riff, they started the delegate riff. Their delegate riff was that “We are going to wipe out the delegate lead on March 4.” The fact is they haven’t changed their situation at all. They may have changed perceptions a little bit. We don’t know what’s happening here in Texas, we’ll see what happens in Texas, but we’re probably going to win the delegate fight here in Texas. Ultimately, this is a race for delegates. We’ve got a substantial lead. We’ve won 28 contests to their 13. We’ve won more popular votes. We’ve won in every part of the country. We’ve put together a coalition of independents, Democrats and Republicans. We’ve energized young people in a way they haven’t been in a generation. And we’ve shown the ability to put together a coaltion that is going to take on John McCain and beat John McCain and that’s why we’re doing so much better than she in so many polls against McCain. I don’t think this materially changes anything. It may extend the race, but I don’t think it’s going to change the outcome.”

The Bourbon Room then asked: “They hit you hard, are you going to hit hard back?”

Axelrod: “I think we’re willing to join the debate. If they want to define the debate in terms of the issues they’ve laid out in the past week, if they want to throw the kitchen sink, they’re going to engender a response. If they want to have a discussion about ethics, then we’ll have a discussion about ethics. If they want to have a discussion about who is prepared to be commander in chief, then we’re going to ask the hard questions about the decisions that’s she’s made. If she wants to say she’s going to be a steward of the economy, and talk about her accomplishments in public life, then we’re going to talk about that. It isn’t going to be a one-way debate. “

It will be very interesting to see how far Obama’s campaign goes with its response/reaction to Clinton now. If Axelrod follows through on discussing Clinton’s ethics, commander-in-chief qualifications and capability to run the economy in the context of hard, negative ads against Clinton, the campaign will cross yet another Rubicon. Hillary Clinton crossed one with the “3 a.m.” ad and the risk paid off. The Clinton camp knew there could be a backlash among Democrats who resent using terror fears to make a political point. The gamble paid off as exit polling data shows the “3 a.m.” ad helped Clinton reverse the slide and eke out a victory in Texas. Obama would run the risk, if he ran negative ads, of abandoning his “new brand of politics,” but it might also prove his grit and determination to win — something Democrats in and out of the trenches now question.

We’ll see if Axelrod was venting or plotting. And we’ll see soon enough.

For those of you Bourbon Room loyalists, you well remember — or may have been trying to forget — my near-rhapsodic take on the Los Angeles debate, the first Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama tilt of the campaign.

No need to rhapsodize tonight. Instead of my thoughts, tonight I will pose a series of questions that may help us decide what mattered most and how the debate did or did not change the arc of this fascinating and historic Democratic pursuit of the presidency.

Note: Some questions I will answer for you. Have no fear, the answers will lead to other questions The Bourbon Room promises not to answer.

Here we go.

1. What does camp Clinton consider THE most important moment of the debate?

The lengthy and “passionate” exchange over universal health care?

No.

The debate over whether or not to impose a five-year moratorium on adjustable rate mortgages, as Clinton proposes and Obama opposes?

No.

The debate over how Clinton would restore “fiscal discipline” by ending Bush tax breaks for the wealthy and ending the Iraq war to invest in new infrastructure and start new “clean green jobs”?

No.

The answer came from Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson in the form of an e-mail sent to reporters at 9:57 p.m. EST, mere moments after the debate ended. The full contents of the Wolfson e-mail are reprinted here:

“What we saw in the final moments in that debate is why Hillary Clinton is the next president of the United States. Her strength, her experience, her compassion. She’s tested and ready. It was the moment she retook the reins of this race and showed women and men why she is the best choice.”

Question: Do you agree and do you see anything relevant at all in the near-instantaneous framing of the “moment” by Sen. Clinton’s campaign?

Question: Does the following e-mail sent to reporters at 10:15 p.m. EST by Bill Burton, national spokesman for Barack Obama’s campaign, carry any weight with you?

“Clinton tonight: You know, whatever happens, we’re going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we’ll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that’s what this election should be about.”

The Burton e-mail then includes this quote from John Edwards: “What’s not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine no matter what happens in this election. But what’s at stake is whether America is going to be fine.” The quote comes from a Democratic candidate debate on Dec. 13, 2007.

UPDATE from the Obama campaign at 11:35 p.m. EST:

Burton sent this e-mail: Yet another line lifted for what was her “best moment.”

Clinton tonight: “You know, the hits I’ve taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country. And I resolved at a very young age that I’d been blessed and that I was called upon by my faith and by my upbringing to do what I could to give others the same opportunities and blessings that I took for granted. That’s what gets me up in the morning. That’s what motivates me in this campaign.”

President Clinton: “When the history of this campaign is written, they may say, well, Bill Clinton took a lot of hits in this campaign. The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits that people in this state and country are taking every day of their lives under this administration (Aug. 14, 2000).

Question: Does this second Obama e-mail on the Clinton “moment” matter to you or suggest anything to you about the degree of concern camp Obama has about the “moment”?

Which leads to a related question. Did you consider Clinton’s line against Obama on the question of lifting lines (or trading them) from/with Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick memorable? To jog your memory Clinton said: “That’s not change you can believe in, that’s change you can Xerox.”

Next question. Do you remember Clinton saying more frequently she agreed with Obama or Obama saying more frequently that he agreed with Clinton? Your answer, based on your recollection of the debate is more important than the actual answer (which, to be honest, The Bourbon Room doesn’t have).

The related question is this: Generally, considering the current context of the race and Obama’s 11 straight victories (Obama won the Democrats Abroad primary today), does Clinton agreement with Obama on issues do more for Obama than his agreement with her on issues?

Question: Does it matter to you that in a 2003 questionnaire, Obama said he favored normalizing relations with Cuba (http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/12/sweet_column_obamas_2003_iviip.html), but tonight said he would not normalize relations with Cuba unless it pursues human rights and democratic reforms.

Question: Do you think the gap between Clinton and Obama narrowed or expanded on whether the next president should negotiate directly with U.S. enemies such Cuba, Iran and North Korea?

Question: Can you remember a significant difference that emerged in nearly 10 minutes of debate over how to revive the U.S. economy?

Question: Do you understand the difference between Clinton and Obama on the pursuit of universal health care coverage? Does it strike you as an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin difference or a crucial philosophical divide?

Question: Do you agree or disagree with Obama’s assertion the Iraq troop surge represents a “tactical victory” that is hopelessly ensnared in major “strategic blunder”?

Question: Do you believe Obama’s surge answer, if he’s the Democratic nominee, will be viewed as one of strength in the inevitable Iraq debates with Sen. John McCain?

Question: Which is the logical sequence in a republic as politically complex as ours: change then solutions, or solutions then change?

Question: Did Obama look to you more or less presidential than in the previous 18 debates?

Question: Did you think Clinton faced the hardest debate of this campaign in light of her poor post-Super Tuesday performances and, as such, deserves higher marks for pluck, poise and determination?

Question: Did either Obama or Clinton answer the final “crisis” question and does that matter to you?

The answers are yours. The election is yours, especially in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont on March 4 (remember Texans, early voting is occurring NOW).

The Clinton campaign denied Tuesday it would make any effort to coax pledged Barack Obama delegates to switch to Hillary Clinton at the Democratic National Convention.

“We have not, are not and will not pursue the pledged delegates of Barack Obama. We think Sen. Obama’s campaign owes you all a clear answer as to whether they will pursue our pledged delegates.”

The Clinton camp is sensitive to this topic because it wants to avoid any appearance of pursuing a win-at-all-costs strategy, something the Obama camp has accused it of as debate has intensified over the role superdelegates should play in the pitched nomination fight.

Clinton’s camp argues the 795 superdelegates should support the candidate they believe would be the best nominee, not necessarily the candidate who has won the most contests, votes or pledged delegates. The Obama camp believes just the opposite and has said Clinton can’t hope to narrow the 136-delegate lead it says it has amassed in pledged delegates.

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton told FOX News, “Of course we won’t do that.”

Burton said the real question is why the Clinton camp “didn’t deny” they had a pledged delegate strategy.

The Politico.com reported Tuesday that an unnamed senior Clinton official said the campaign would try to persuade pledged delegates committed to Obama to switch to Clinton. Under party rules, pledged delegates - despite their title - can change their allegiance even before the first balllot is cast.

Generally, pledged delegates stick with the candidate they are pledged to as results are tallied in primaries and caucuses.

Any attempt to fight over pledged delegates could generate micro-political wars on the convention floor and introduce a degree of chaos not seen in party conventions in a generation.

In a conference call today, Harold Ickes, party operative for 40 years and former White House deputy chief to President Clinton, boldly predicted Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination and do so soon after the last party primary on June 7 in Puerto Rico.

“We’re going to win this nomination,” Ickes said. “You’re not going to see this go to the convention floor.”

Ickes predicted Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will run “neck-and-neck” in the 18 remaining state and territorial primaries and caucuses and that there will be a “minuscule amount of difference” between the two in pledged delegates and that so-called Super Delegates will determine the outcome and side in larger numbers for Clinton.

Ickes denounced the term Super Delegates and said the Clinton camp henceforth will refer to them as “automatic delegates.”

“The Fourth Estate created the term Super Delegate,” Ickes said, even though Democrats have used the Super Delegate term widely in the roiling debate of their allegiances and responsibilities in the increasingly competitive and high-stakes battle for Democratic presidential nomination. “They don’t have super powers,” Ickes said of the Super Delegates. “It’s one-person, one-vote. They have no more power than any other delegate. But they do have a sense of what it takes to get elected.”

He said Super Delegates must “exercise their best judgment” about who can win the White House.

“They are closely in touch with the issues and ideas of the jurisdiction they represent and they are as much or more in touch than delegates won or recruited by presidential campaigns.”

In essence, Ickes argued the party 795 Super Delegates (Connecticut Independent-Democrat Sen. Joe Lieberman was stripped of his Super Delegate status recently), were in a better position to assess electability and suitability for the presidency than party regulars who will attend the national convention in late August as pledged delegates won through elections in either primaries or caucuses.

Many top Democrats, among them House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have said Super Delegates should follow the will of voters expressed through primaries and caucuses and not trump those votes.

Ickes said Super Delegates were created to augment the elections process and those delegates are duty-bound by rule and precedent to weigh all considerations - not just votes taken in primaries or caucuses before rendering a judgment.

Obama currently leads Clinton by 136 in pledged delegates but trails by 95 in Super Delegates, according to calculations given by both campaigns.

“Hillary will end up with more automatic delegates than Obama,” Ickes said. The number of elections won by Obama is “irrelevant to the obligations of automatic delegates.”

Ickes said he was “too dim of mind” to understand how some might wonder if the Clinton campaign might lure Super Delegates with promises of political favors. “I don’t even understand what that is referring to,” Ickes said, declining to guarantee the campaign will use no promises of tangible benefits to Super Delegates to win them to Clinton’s campaign.

Ickes also quoted top Obama adviser David Axelrod as saying Super Delegates “should vote for what’s best for party and country.”

Axelrod meant Super Delegates should follow the will of voters expressed through primaries and caucuses, but the Clinton campaign interprets it to mean exercise broader judgment linked to larger political aims - specifically choosing Clinton over Obama as the more battle-hardened Democrat capable of winning in November.

“Deciding who you should support, these are not easy judgments. The question is who can make a good and possibly great president. This is a political process.”

Before I begin, please let me ask a favor. And the request comes in the form of a demand, maybe even an order.

Take a moment to ponder and savor the majestic historical break-through this debate represents. Longer. Longer. Let it soak in. Just take a moment longer.

OK.

Now, ask yourself this question: when you first became politically aware did you ever imagine a presidential debate of this magnitude and importance involving a woman and an African-American man?

I was born in 1962 and can tell you I first became politically aware when Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. were assassinated. I didn’t know what it all meant, but I knew it was serious and sad. Like everyone, I was afraid our country had been changed forever and for the worse. I can’t help tonight but think back to the vague sense of dread I had about politics then and reflect tonight so many years later on the true nature of persistence and possibility.

I’ve watched politics as a journalist, I have come to understand the power of symbols and how symbols often obscure agendas. But sometimes symbols shatter old notions, accepted truths, and calcified conventions.

Tonight’s debate — whether you are a liberal, a conservative, or an independent — stands as a landmark in a nation that justifiably commands the attention and fascination of the world.

With Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama as the two remaining Democratic candidates for the presidency, the world sees the embodiment of core American traits of freedom, tolerance, diversity, grit and, yes, audacity.

This is not an endorsement of either candidate. It’s an acknowledgment that their rise to dominance in the Democratic Party breaks the mold in ways few could have imagined as recently as two years ago. When America, the most imaginative nation on Earth, surprises itself we must catch our breath, marvel at ourselves and indulge in a small blush of pride.

I can tell you the reason I am rhapsodizing about this moment. Here in the press room outside the Kodak Theater in Los Angeles, many in press row are bored. On a typical debate scale, this encounter is not an edge-of-your-seat affair. The debate is certainly calmer and more substantive than the Myrtle Beach knife fight. That’s to be expected, because politicians are normatively cautious and any two politicians taking part in something THAT’S NEVER BEEN SEEN BEFORE are even more prone to proceed with care.

And so Clinton and Obama did.

And yet, the debate was not without its high points.

I won’t grade the debate or the performances because tonight the larger issue is the event itself and what it represents. History will record the tableau, not the transcript.

Clinton and Obama dissected each other’s health care plans carefully and fairly. Clinton knows, because she believes in it and the polls reflect it, that pushing hard for universal health care is the way to appeal bedrock Democratic values and voters. When she said anything less will be “picked apart” she not only issued a warning but rallied party foot-soldiers who don’t want to fight for a concept, but an absolute.

This is not to say that Obama lost the health care debate. The voters will decide which approach is better. Whn Obama argues the first priority is to lower costs, he raises an important but politically less-resonant point. His formula takes longer to explain and exposes him to criticism that his plan is built on a fragile foundation where an estimated 15 million adults would still lack health insurance coverage. Based on conversations I’ve had with voters, however, it seems that if Obama loses ground on substance he makes it up on style. Obama voters and those on the fence tend to believe that a larger political coalition is required before universal health care or something close to it can be achieved. They also tend to believe Obama can create that coalition and Clinton cannot.

On Iraq, it’s hard for The Bourbon Room to detect a tectonic shift tonight (hey, I was born in San Diego and can indulge in one earthquake metaphor without penalty). Most Democratic voters understand Clinton and Obama will end the Iraq war more rapidly than any Republican nominee, especially if the nominee is, as appears more and more likely, Arizona Sen. John McCain. Obama supporters were drawn to him first because he opposed the war from the start. When Clinton declined again to say her vote for the Iraq war authorization was a “mistake” she re-enforced why many Obama supporters are where they are. In Super Tuesday states where some voters may be tuning into the campaign for the first time, this could reintroduce the central weakness in Clinton’s “experience” argument. Clinton strategists, however, believe she’s already lost all the votes she’s going to lose on this issue.

On the economy, differences were substantive but not remotely combative. Obama could have used his stump speech lines about Clinton’s original stimulus plan failing to demand tax rebates or credits. Clinton could have said she was warning about a recession long before Obama and put together the first substantive stimulus plan of any major candidate. Both left that ammunition under the table.

On immigration, the most important point is that both were far more willing to talk freely about comprehensive solutions. The reason? The rise of McCain. On driver’s licenses, the differences were gently highlighted and both scored a key point — Obama that Clinton flip-flopped; Clinton that a week after the Philadelphia debate Obama couldn’t authoritatively state his position. More important was how they enthusiastically spoke of a comprehensive solution and how readily they condemned the “anti-amnesty” politics that killed immigration reform (and nearly McCain’s candidacy) earlier this year. The change in tone and temperament matches McCain’s own improbable comeback. Clinton and Obama have begun to conclude that the immigration monster either will die because will be the GOP nominee or that it will be relegated to angry third-party splinter movement (a plus for the Democrats either way).

On the running-mate issue, both turned it away easily and for good reason. At the end of this campaign Clinton and Obama will stand as enormous figures — not only in their party but in American political history. If Clinton prevails, she will seek a vice president with complementary skills, temperament and, most importantly, a keen understanding of the lesser role the vice president must play in her White House. The same is true of Obama.

Why?

Because if either is elected president, all of the old measurements will disappear. Every move Clinton or Obama makes will be historic. The focus on their presidencies will be, if possible, even more intense, personal and urgent. Under these circumstances, the centrality of the office will require a vice president eager to accept a secondary role in a new march of history. Any whiff of competition or hidden agenda will not only rankle the president, the president’s senior staff and cabinet, but the party hierarchy and the rank-and-file. It’s The Bourbon Room’s hunch that a large swath of the public will live vicariously through a Clinton or Obama presidency. Hopes will be high. The stakes will be high. The next vice president must be devoted as perhaps no vice president has been before to the task of making history work for the new president and the many things he or she will represent. Also, an Obama and Clinton presidency will also require massive legislative support on Capitol Hill. That will require skills in the cloakroom and the ability to hit the road and rally the public on behalf of the new president’s agenda. For this reason, a president Clinton will need a Senator Obama far more than a Vice President Obama. And a President Obama will need a Senator Clinton far more than a Vice President Clinton.

Lastly, for those who wonder if Obama or Clinton would need each other to defeat the Republican nominee (probably McCain), I can only say that most top Democratic strategists (those in both campaigns and those who remain neutral) tell me because Clinton and Obama break the mold, each will win or lose ENTIRELY on their own merits. The vice presidential pick, these strategists agree, will matter even less than before — which is next to not at all.

The debate’s ferocity set a new standard for Democratic combativeness.

What America saw tonight was all of the pent up opposition research from Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards spill out on stage as if from a giant, perforated spleen at the Republican National Committee.

Already, Democrats with loyalties in this race and some who remain neutral have fretted to The Bourbon Room that the biggest winner tonight was the likely Republican nominee (Edwards said it would be John McCain). Yet other Democrats found the debate tense but mild when compared to Democratic campaigns of yore.

The debate will test what the campaigns have been unwilling to test on the airwaves — the effectiveness of direct, personal attacks on each other. Every perceived weakness came under assault and each candidate left the stage more bloodied than he or she arrived.

The debate’s greatest contribution was the time alloted for lengthy rebuttal. This gave the debate some of its most sizzling intensity and allowed for dramatic policy contrasts (such as on universal health care, trade and approaches to economic stimulus).

Winners and losers can’t be tabulated based solely on the debate performance.

If they could be, Edwards would again emerge as the clear winner. His crisp, passionate specificity again outshone Clinton and Obama. This is undoubtedly the kind of joust Edwards desperately needed in Iowa, where he still had a fighting chance to win the nomination. If this debate happened in Iowa, Edwards could have contrasted himself against the aggressively nagging and negative Obama-Clinton interplay that dominated the first hour of tonight’s debate (of course, this kind of debate would never have happened in Iowa which is always why Edwards never actually had a chance in this race).

Sadly for Edwards and his diminishing band of supporters, his performance tonight, while cogent, will probably most be remembered for providing either comedic relief or a welcome respite from the Clinton-Obama sniping. The debate could boost Edwards in South Carolina, but since he’s so far behind here it’s unlikely to propel him to victory.

The key question, then, is if Edwards rises who suffers? Clinton or Obama? The Bourbon Room surmises the votes will most likely come from Clinton.

And that’s not because Obama beat Clinton. I’d call their battle a draw on points. But if Edwards rises as a result of tonight’s strong performance, he will more likely take support from Clinton because the arc of the debate highlighted her deep ties to lobbyists, her support for the Iraq war and, in general, the exaggerated criticisms she or her husband have leveled at Obama. Also, on issues where the three did not argue - such as poverty, Dr. Martin Luther King’s legacy, and Toni Morrison’s musings on the blackness of the Clinton presidency — Obama and Edwards were more confidently and naturally eloquent. Clinton didn’t stumble in these moments, but Obama and Edwards out-performed her.

Obama probably lost ground on health care because “universal” vs. “non-universal” polls off the charts with core Democrats (they want universal and, at bare minimum, the fight to START with the goal of universal coverage).

Clinton probably lost ground on Iraq and the stimulus. On the war, criticizing Obama for voting for war funds doesn’t make him a pro-war. Plenty of other anti-war liberals have voted to fund the troops fighting the war. That doesn’t make them pro-war. It makes them accountable to powerless volunteers who didn’t ask to fight the war, merely to have the equipment to prosecute it as best as they can. On economic stimulus, Clinton was first to unveil a comprehensive plan. But that plan did not highlight tax rebates. Hillary said they were held in reserve to avoid tempting congressional Republicans to reopen that debate over extending the Bush tax cuts. As Hillary must know, that was going to happen anyway. Also, many economists fear her call for a five-year freeze on mortgage loan interest rates will drive up the cost of future mortgages and thereby further delay any rebound in the housing market.

Edwards lost ground on trade and the bankruptcy bill, but since these issues are largely peripheral, the damage was less severe.

In summary, Edwards gained tonight. And since he and Obama sounded more like “change” than Hillary, his rise will probably take more from Clinton on Saturday than from Obama.

Obama held his own in the toe-to-toe fight with Clinton. The underdog, which Obama is nationally, always wins when the favorite hits hard and he doesn’t crumble. Also, Obama sounded more high notes among likely African American voters in South Carolina’s primary (where their turnout could easily exceed 50 percent) .

Clinton scored points but took several stylistic hits (drawing the occasional boo) and oddly acted as if Obama was more of a threat now than he was in Iowa or New Hampshire. She also appeared uncomfortable defending her husband’s recently aggressive line of attack on Obama (no one compares Bill Clinton to Michelle Obama or Elizabeth Edwards in the surrogate wars).

In summary, Edwards gave his candidacy a boost. Obama took Clinton’s best shots and survived. Clinton acted as if she hadn’t won the last two contests and regained her aura of inevitability and combativeness suits the challenger better than the front-runner.

Net winner by a slim margin: Obama.

Hillary Clinton won the Nevada caucuses. The turnout was massive, well above 115,000 and far and above any pre-caucus predictions (except those of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who was closer than anyone with a prediction six months ago of 100,000).

Massive turnout did not propel Barack Obama to victory, as it did in the Iowa caucuses. In two consecutive states (New Hampshire and Nevada), large turnout has lifted Clinton and lifted her where it matters most — among core Democratic constituencies such as labor households, women, and Latinos and lower income households. Yes, Hillary had the support of most of the state’s most prominent state and county Democrats and once led by as many as 25 points two months ago. Obama did close the gap and gave Clinton a tough race. But he still lost. Wins and losses leave consequences in their wake.

In politics generally and in this race particularly, some things matter more than others. Two-straight victories for Hillary based on core party voting blocks means more than the current stir here about Nevada’s delegate allocation.

Right now, the Clinton and Obama camps are arguing over who won the most delegates in Nevada. The issue in Nevada is how delegates will be apportioned from urban centers and rural counties. Obama won 10 of Nevada’s 16 counties and carried the sparsely populated rural counties by lopsided margins and thus may collect more delegates than Hillary, even though she won the turnout and precinct battle .

Nevada Democratic Party Chair Jill Derby disputes this and she should know. Here is Derby’s statement: “Just like in Iowa what was awarded today were delegates to the county convention. No national convention delegates were awarded. 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. We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support.”

Delegates matter in the big picture, but this dispute is a side-show and here is why: Nevada had 25 pledged delegates to allocate and either Clinton won 13 and Obama won 12 or just the opposite occurred. One delegate either way doesn’t move the needle in any important way.

Whoever captures the Democratic nomination will need to win 2,025 delegates. Viewed in isolation, Nevada is a fraction of that amount. And a one delegate shift between 13 to 12 doesn’t change the trajectory or strategy of this race nearly as much as Hillary’s victory in the raw turnout and precinct-by-precinct contests.

Nevada is about momentum and electability. Hillary leaves Nevada with more of both than she arrived with. That’s what matters. Hillary lost two things in Iowa — the aura of inevitability and the sense that she was genuinely the most electable Democrat. With her New Hampshire and Nevada victories, Hillary can now more credibly assert she is at least as electable — and possibly more electable - than Obama.

Clinton won the union vote here by carrying 7 of the 9 casino-based at-large caucus precincts even though the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Obama and applied intense last-minute pressure to mobilize their members on Obama’s behalf. As The Bourbon Room observed before the caucuses commenced, there is every reason to believe the Culinary endorsement came too late to push Obama across the finish line first. It also means that Hillary arrived in Nevada with a pre-existing following among Culinary workers and their loyalty translated when and where it mattered most — on caucus day and at their assigned precincts. That was especially true among Latino members of Culinary. Of today’s caucus turnout, Latinos comprised 15 percent. Of those, 64 percent voted for Clinton and 26 percent for Obama.

The Latino vote in internal campaign polls before the race had a roughly 65 percent to 35 percent Clinton/Obama split. Notice, Clinton’s actual performance closely matched the pre-caucus polls but Obama’s did not.

It may be that the UNITE radio ad that described Clinton tactics here in the form of a law suit filed against the at-large precinct caucus sites as “shameless” and showing a lack of “respect” backfired on Obama. Of course, Obama’s campaign had nothing to do with the content of the ad, but Obama could have denounced the ad’s content as Clinton’s camp requested. When it did not, Obama gave rise to the perception that he agreed with the ad script which both John Edwards and team Clinton regarded as malicious and out-of-bounds.

If the Nevada race reverberates anywhere other than South Carolina, it’s in California. The Clinton campaign worked very hard to make sure Spanish radio and television were aware of her Latino outreach and the nasty nature of the UNITE radio spot. As one senior aide put it to The Bourbon Room, “we’ve been attached at the waist to Univision and Spanish radio for the last couple of days.” Pro-Clinton surrogates with deep ties to the Latino community, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaragosa and Delores Huerta chief among them, intend to leverage Hillary’s strong Latino showing and the Obama-sanctioned hardball on Spanish radio. Why? To motivate Latino voters in California, the biggest prize by far on the 22-state Super Tuesday calendar (370 pledged delegates).

For these reasons, some things matter more in Nevada than delegate allocations. The Bourbon Room has attempted to listed the most important.

Anecdotal reports abound of heavy turnout at Democratic caucus sites and confusion evident over which site is the correct one for caucus-goers. Calls are flooding into the Nevada Democratic Party call-in center at the Cashman Center near downtown. Turnout could easily top the 40,000 state party operatives set as a goal of “successful” turnout.

Early results show Hillary Clinton leading in vote-rich Clark County but running neck-and-neck with Barack Obama statewide. Eighty percent of likely turnout to come from metropolitan Las Vegas (Clark County) and Reno.

One source of confusion: there are more tan 1,700 precincts but only 520 caucus locations. That means several precincts conduct caucuses at the same location. High schools, for example are conducting one precinct caucus in the cafeteria, another in the auditorium and another in the gymnasium. In rare instances, precinct caucuses will be held outside on the a high school football field. As you can appreciate, moving people to the proper caucus site would be a big chore for caucus volunteers well-versed in the precinct machinery. It could prove frustrating and paralyzing for people pressed into service at the last minute who are unfamiliar with the rules, procedures and logistics.

This problem will not go away today and is likely to spark some grousing about the final results.

But it won’t be the only grousing, I predict.

Early Fox entrance polls suggest Hillary Clinton may do well today, but those entrance polls do NOT reflect sentiments expressed by caucus-goers heading into the nine at-large precincts in casinos located on or near the Las Vegas Strip. Since the casinos are private property, entrance poll takers were not allowed to engage the rank-and-file casino shift workers heading into their caucuses.

Even so, Clinton had a nine-point lead going into the caucuses in the Review-Journal poll and there’s no evidence yet — in the entrance polls, precinct-by-precinct turnout reports, or turnout in the casino-based caucus sites — to indicate she’s lost that much ground to Obama in the closing hours.

I worked in Las Vegas as a reporter for the Review-Journal newspaper from 1986 to 1988 and appreciate the disdain all Nevadans have for cheap gambling metaphors glibly deployed by national reporters when discussing ANY Nevada-based story.

Tempting though it may be, I will avoid the corny gambling cliches as I describe the feeling on the ground here just about two hours before the Democratic caucuses begin.

First, there is some degree of unease in the Barack Obama camp about today’s result.

Second, I detect no preemptive triumphalism in the Clinton camp.

Third, the unions here are at daggers drawn and things could get a bit hostile at caucus sites on and off the Las Vegas Strip before the day is done.

Fourth, the Latino vote looms largest as the subset of voters most likely to determine the outcome. Public polls and internal polls in both campaigns show that vote splitting at least 65-35 for Clinton over Obama. The size of this turnout could spell the difference between victory and defeat.

Fifth, the Culinary Workers Union local 226 is, as expected, pulling out all the stops to help Obama win. But there is rising concern that two factors may limit Culinary’s clout in this hard-fought contest:

A. The endorsement may have come too late to translate the union’s organizing power into massive pro-Obama turnout (remember this fact: it’s much easier for a union to unify and mobilize its members on behalf of a fight for wages and benefits than it is on behalf of a political candidate their membership has little or no intrinsic commitment to). A key question looming over today’s caucuses is whether the Culinary endorsement was so close to the caucuses - just 10 days out — that there wasn’t time to fully mobilize union members on Obama’s behalf.

B. The lawsuit filed against the at-large precincts in nine casinos may have had two salutary affects on the Clinton campaign: the first, creating enough confusion about the process to render Culinary’s aggressive last-minute organizing less effective; and second, deepening pro-Clinton sentiment among Culinary members who disagreed with leadership’ s Obama endorsement. Bill Clinton and Chelsea Clinton just swept through the MGM casino and received a very warm reception among rank-and-file casino workers who eagerly grabbed leaflets Bill and Chelsea handed out explaining casino workers can caucus for any candidate — not just Obama.

Sixth, Rory Reid, son of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and leader of Hillary’s Nevada effort, has never wavered in his belief Nevada was winnable for Clinton. Right not, he appears as calmly confident as anyone in the Clinton camp. To his credit, Rory was calm even in the panic that set in when team Clinton feared it might lose New Hampshire and debated whether to fight hard for Nevada. Reid assured senior Clinton advisers Hillary could win no matter what happened in New Hampshire. Victory is by no means assured for Clinton here, but Rory may have been the one to keep his emotions in check the best and that, in the end, may prove very beneficial to Clinton.