Obama officials tell The Bourbon Room the process of selecting a Vice President has begun but is in its infancy. It amounts, they say, to little more now than assembling a team to begin the process once Obama secures the nomination.

Obama officials say no one is yet leading up the effort but that party veteran Jim Johnson will be among those consulted. In due course Johnson may assume a more formal role and his early involvement signals he is more likely than not to land the post, should he want it. Johnson, who led the veep search process for John Kerry in 2004 and Walter Mondale in 1984, is a natural choice for advice and counsel, Obama advisers say.

“News flash, Jim Johnson may help us look a Vice Presidential Process,” said a one top Obama official. “He’s been around a long time. He’s been doing this since Mondale. There’s nothing official and all of the reporting about this is pretty rudimentary.”

Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat and former Senate Majority leader may also lend a hand in the process. Considering the historic nature of everything related to Obama’s transformation from candidate to nominee, there will be no shortage of volunteers offering advice and counsel. A hallmark of the Obama campaign has been its ability to assemble a smart, effective team, focus them on the task at hand and minimize in-fighting. It would be a startling departure from form if the veep selection process played out any differently.

Right now, all that’s being done is a team is being selected to review open-source research on potential candidates. “Anyone can do that, ” the Obama official said.

True, but there are practical reasons for team Obama to downplay what is unquestionably one of the most important tasks of his general election campaign. Obama advisers don’t want to antagonize Hillary Clinton’s campaign or its legions of supporters with premature talk of hunting for a running mate amid a still-active primary process. This is part of the balancing act Clinton’s continued presence in the race has imposed on Obama and his team, for the sake of party unity, is taking it in stride and trying to strike a pose of respectful patience.

But it can only play that hand for so long. The process of moving toward a running mate must be communicated, if even in the vaguest terms, to signal to supporters and the nation that serious tasks are being dealt with in their natural order — even if it means risking a bit of ruffled feathers in Hillaryland.

Two other notes….

First, much has been made of the Kentucky exit poll result showing 45 percent of voters said John Edward’s endorsement of Obama was “important” to them and that a majority of those supported Obama. This has led some to conclude that Edwards would be a good potential running mate and this exit data suggests he might have sizable pull among working class voters Obama has yet to attract. Obama officials I’ve talked to don’t see it this way. They believe the die was cast in Kentucky before Edwards endorsed and those who said his endorsement mattered were, in many cases, already Obama supporters. Thus, they say, Edwards only reinforced their preference. It’s obvious Obama’s camp didn’t think Edwards would have moved many votes because they didn’t send him to Kentucky. The Obama results in Kentucky were bad and there was no sense sending Edwards there would have changed the result very much — and Edwards may have been reluctant to hit the trail in what was pretty obviously a lost cause. In other words, Edwards’ endorsement mattered, largely, to a self-selected group of Obama supporters and did not, in the view of the Obama campaign, move mountains or even mole hills of votes.

Second, Quinnipiac has three battleground polls out today. In Pennsylvania, Clinton leads John McCain 50 percent to 37 percent while Obama leads McCain 46 percent to 40 percent (1,667 surveyed, 2.4 percent margin of error); in Ohio, Clinton leads McCain 48 percent to 41 percent while McCain leads Obama 44 percent to 40 percent (1,224 surveyed, 2.8 percent margin of error); in Florida, Clinton leads McCain 48 percent to 41 percent, while McCain leads Obama 45 percent to 41 percent (1,419 surveyed, 2.6 percent margin of error).

In the McCain-Obama matchups, 26 percent to 36 percent of Clinton supporters in each battleground state say they will switch to McCain if Obama is the nominee. Of Obama supporters, 10 percent to 18 percent say they would back McCain if Clinton’s the nominee.

What to make of these numbers? Team Clinton says is buttresses their argument she’s the stronger potential nominee. Team Obama, of course, sees it differently. They no longer pay any attention to head-to-heads with Clinton, but head-to-heads with McCain. Here they see a lead in Pennsylvania and within-the-margin-of-error deficits in Florida and Ohio. They believe once Obama becomes the nominee and Democrats stop dividing their loyalties between Clinton and Obama, the Obama numbers against McCain will inevitably rise. They say they are pleased, at this stage, to be so close to McCain in states they lost to Clinton and where they’ve yet to define McCain and court Clinton supporters in earnest.

June will be an excellent month to test this theory. As well as accelerate the process to find Obama’s running mate.

Share

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.

Share

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).

Share

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.

Share

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.

Share

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.

Share

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.

Share

U.S. District Judge James Mahan ruled against the Nevada State Education Association and other plaintiffs seeking to eliminate nine-casino based at-large precincts for Saturday’s presidential preference caucuses.

Mahan told a packed courtroom on that “I don’t think it’s up to me to second guess” the legally established right of state and national parties to establish rules for presidential caucuses. “That’s why we have political parties,” Mahan said. “It’s a vital part of who we are as Americans. These are vital issues.”

Mahan invited the Nevada Democratic Party and the state education association to reach an out-of-court compromise on participation for custodians and other support personnel to participate in caucuses held at schools they must open and supervise.

Jill Derby, chairman of the Nevada Democratic Party, told reporters after Mahan’s ruling there would be no compromise. “There will be no change in the process,” Derby said. “We believe this is a fair allocation and we’re very committed to it.”

Derby said Democrats would unite in the aftermath of the ruling, even though the lawsuit exposed rifts in the party and was widely seen as a proxy war between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns.

The lawsuit was filed two days after the Culinary Workers Union Local 226 endorsed Barack Obama. The plaintiffs did not formally endorse Clinton’s campaign, but senior members of the Nevada State Education Association back Hillary and the law firm that handled the suit has as one of its prominent attorneys former Democratic congressman Jim Bilbray, a Clinton supporter.

‘”I don’t think it’s been helpful,” Derby said of the antagonism the suit generated between the Clinton and Obama camps. “But we’ll pull together.”

Lynn Warne, president of the teachers union, said she was “disappointed” in the ruling because she said it created an unfair opportunity for casino shift workers represented by Culinary to participate in the Saturday caucuses at the special at-large sites while other workers — specifically her janitors — would have to return to their neighborhood-based precincts to participate, something they cannot do while they supervise caucus activities at the schools where they serve as janitors.

Derby said the party established the casino-based caucus sites to assist tens of thousands of workers participate.

The caucus rules were first established by the state Democratic party in March and formally approved by the Democratic National Committee in October. During the court hearing today, the DNC said if the nine at-large caucus sites were abolished Nevada might lose all of its presidential nominating delegates.

Mark Ferrario, the attorney who represented the teachers union and other plaintiffs, told reporters he was not sure if an appeal will be filed.

Share

In a release that just hit the wires, Robert Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment Television and prominent supporter of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, apologized to Barack Obama for recently implying that while the Clintons were fighting for civil rights, Obama was taking drugs.

With Hillary looking on at an event in Columbia, South Carolina, on Jan. 13, Johnson said:

“I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood –­ and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book –­ when they have been involved.”

Obama admitted experimenting with marijuana and cocaine in his book “Dreams from my Father.” Johnson’s comments caused quite a stir. He initially defended them, saying he was referring only to Obama’s time as a community organizer – an explanation that neither Obama’s campaign nor many hosts of many black talk radio shows accepted. At the same event, Johnson compared Obama to Sidney Portier in “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.” At Tuesday’s debate here in Las Vegas, Hillary Clinton first defended Johnson’s explanation but also said his remarks were out of bounds.

Today Johnson released the following statement:

“I am writing to apologize to you and your family personally for the uncalled for comments I made at a recent Clinton event. In my zeal to support Senator Clinton I made some very inappropriate remarks for which I am truly sorry. I hope that you will accept this apology. Good luck on the campaign trail.”

Share

The Bourbon Room has learned from top Democratic sources that six-term U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, a staunch defender of President Bill Clinton during the GOP-led impeachment, will endorse Barack Obama for president during an 11 a.m. EST conference call.

Leahy will appear on the conference call with Obama campaign manager David Plouffe.

Leahy is the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and also led the fight against GOP efforts to delay and some cases deny confirmation of Clinton-nominated federal judges during the final two years of the Clinton presidency.

Leahy also opposed the Iraq war resolution and has been at the forefront of Democratic criticism of President Bush’s detention policies for enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and the Bush “terrorist surveillance” program.

Leahy also helped negotiate the first Patriot Act and was instrumental in reauthorizing the law with changes that reduced the federal government’s power to search library and personal records of American citizens implicated but not charged in terrorist investigations.

Elected in 1974, Leahy is Vermont’s longest serving senator and was among te first in the Senate to have an official website (launched in 1995) and in 2003 was the first senator to launch a personal blog “More from the floor.”

Share