I think people who read the paper know the difference.   People know the difference between the Washington Post and the Washington Times for instance.   My guess is people in Vegas who read newspapers, or who vote in Caucuses, know the difference.   Rightwing papers are not usually subtle in their slant.

As a Las Vegas resident who's political active I am being 100% sincere when I say that the Review Journal is a hated among democrats. Even people who aren't really political active know that the paper is hard right conservative. We're talking Republican Revolution I wish 3/4 of the government were gone type of conservatives.

I lived in Las Vegas for 7 years. Both of the papers in Reno and Las Vegas are despised by NV workers as they are both consistently Republican, and anti union.

Obama's surrogates were running around Vegas and Reno yesterday with flyers asking that Republicans join in the Democratic caucus to defeat Clinton, and of course, this doesn't affect their general vote but....JOIN US IN DEFEATING HILLARY CLINTON.

Obama camp said guy was fired who did this. Sure.
GOP wants Obama to run.  He's a much easier target and they are lining up lots of Chicago and lackluster US Senate material.

Whenever anyone mentions any negatives about Obama, David Axelrod's response is "The average person cares not one whit about this".

He could, unfortunately be right.

His record is clearly something you are avoiding, or you are ignorant of his real politics and affiliations and rise in Chi political Pritzker machine.

His donors and supporters [who he will owe] are the biggest companies in US fron nuclear energy,medical,nursing homes,med equipment,Savings & Loans, and SO much more.

I'm amazed you can avoid reading about his sweetheart real estate deal with Tony Rezko who has just been indicted for corruption. The property Rezko sold to Obama was worth 300,000, and Obama paid $165,000. Rezko a dem. fundraiser was indited in 6million kickback scheme. Rezko raised $60,000 for Obama which $11,500 had to be returned.

There's a lot more. You just don't wanna know.

I'm sure they are.  After all, they also endorsed Ron Paul and Cynthia McKinney.  But I wish Obama and his supporters would pay more attention to the criticism that some of us keep repeating:

The cost of his soaring rhetoric is a disappointing lack of specific plans. It can be hard at times to tell exactly what Obama stands for, exactly how he plans to carry out his ambitious goals. His stump speeches are riddled with words like change and exhortations to a new approach to politics, but he doesn't talk much, for example, about how to address the gap between the rich and the poor, or how to tackle urban crime and poverty, or whether Israel should stop building settlements in the occupied territories.

In fact, our biggest problem with Obama is that he talks as if all the nation needs to do is come together in some sort of grand coalition of Democrats and Republicans, of "blue states and red states." But some of us have no interest in making common cause with the religious right or Dick Cheney or Halliburton or Don Fisher. There are forces and interests in the United States that need to be opposed, defeated, consigned to the dustbin of history, and for all of Obama's talk of unity, we worry that he lacks the interest in or ability to take on a tough, bloody fight against an entrenched political foe.

Keep in mind that, as you said, this is from an endorsement.

The gay population despise Obama's position re: his choice of Church anti gay mouthpiece.

He won't have everyone in SF for sure.

Yeah, I have never really understood that.  Is it because Obama is big on the power of simple words to convey political messages, as Bush is?  Or is it because the Repubs want to trample Obama in Nov.?  Maybe it's a little bit of both!

yeah, yeah -- citing David Brooks automatically makes my point not worth considering... so be it -

But I think Brooks summed it up very well when he said that it's not that conservatives think he's a closet conservative, or even closet moderate -- they think the respects them and their viewpoints, even if he disagrees nearly up and down the line.

There's something to be said for that.

Beyond a few quips here and there ("...why should anyone listen to Cheney at this point...") -- Obama is simply not a tosser of red meat.

Hell - it's that absence of fire-breathing rhetoric that made it so hard for me to get behind him.  The only reason I'm here on MyDD and politically active is BECAUSE I bought hook, line, and sinker into the Deaniac outrage of 2003/2004 - and that outrage sure hasn't abated much.

Ultimately, it's about trust with Obama.  Either you trust him - or you don't.   I do.

He's not looking to beat the Limbaughs of the world - he's looking to render them irrelevant.

Republicans only like or say they like Obama now because they see him as a tool to take out Hillary. If he does that then they immediately turn their guns on him. The ones here believe he is the easiest to defeat because they can play to their lowest common denominator politics of black vs. white and that's always been a win for them.

Every election we obsess about who the GOP or Rove is afraid to face.  Are their pronouncements about this candidate some form of trickery.  Are they saying that are eager to face Dean, Edwards (both were talked about in 2004) because they really were eager or because they were trying to psych out democrats.

I say who cares.  Number one, we give them too much credit to know these things.  I remember that Gore talked about the 1980 election, saying that he hoped Reagan would get the nomination because he was so crazy he would get killed.  After election night, he says he stays out of other parties nominations.

You can make arguments about how Obama presents things and is there too much "trust me."  But let's not give the right wing talking heads too much credence on way or the other.

Now the Reagan worshipping is coming from Obama, too.  Don't we get enough of that from the GOP.

And he's also completely wrong as a factual matter, although he's right so far as the media narrative goes.  As Jane Hamsher says

No, Ronald Reagan didn't appeal to people's optimism, he appealed to their petty, small minded bigotry  and selfishness.  Jimmy Carter told people to tighten their energy belts and act for the good of the country; Ronald Reagan told them they could guzzle gas with impunity and do whatever the hell they wanted.  He kicked off his 1980 campaign talking about "state's rights" in Philadelphia, Mississippi -- the site of the murder of three civil rights workers in 1964's Freedom Summer.  He thus put up a welcome sign for "Reagan Democrats," peeling off white voters who were unhappy with the multi-ethnic coalition within the Democratic Party.

Sometimes I feel like Obama and many of his supporters don't know anything about the political history of the last 30 years.  

In addition to signing the praises of Ronald Reagan, Obama also says in the full interview that he is a "fiscal conservative" and that Democrats in Congress are "too ideological" in their agenda.

I'm not arguing with you, you're on the ground and are probably right, I'm just curious as to why you think a lot of her folks won't be going.  Are they just from demos less likely to caucus?  Does she have a weaker GOTV effort?  Are her supporters less enthused?

Again, I'm just curious.  Nevada seems like this incredibly blank slate right now and I'm trying to fill in some of the picture (your diaries have been very helpful, thank you for posting them).

was doing that they aren't to help turn out the vote?  Is it just a matter of David vs Goliath, or do you think a tactical mistake was made?

Yes, his outreach to Republicans has won him an endorsement that reads as follows:

Is Barack Obama, then, the ideal Democratic candidate for president? Hardly. His policy recommendations -- when he can be convinced to get any more specific than "I represent change" -- are the opposite of "change." They're old-line, welfare-state solutions that haven't spent enough time in the microwave to appear even superficially appetizing.

Sen. Obama is a relatively young man with relatively little of the kind of real-world experience that prepares a candidate to stand firm against urgent advice to, say, bomb some remote population of defenseless civilians to "send a message," or plunge the economy into a dark night of unforeseen consequences by crippling the free market in the name of "fighting greed."

But Barack Obama is, at least, likeable. He is a good enough orator that there is no need to cringe when he dares to speak off the cuff. He is a good politician, in the non-insulting sense that he knows how to speak to individual Americans and give them the feeling he cares about their concerns.

As Nevada Democrats head to their caucuses Saturday, they might ask themselves whether they really want to spend two months later this year watching a re-run of the horror movie "It Came From Little Rock," with the sound turned up much too loud -- or if they'd rather make it a real contest this fall.

If they prefer the latter, they're better off backing Barack Obama on Saturday.

Republicans like him because he's not Hillary.  Truly, this is confirmation of his brilliant strategy.  I wonder if he also hopes to win their votes in the general election by pointing out that he is not Hillary.