Since we're apparently children willing to accept anything that supports our favorite cartoon character, and unable to apply our critical faculties, let's look at the nebulousness of delegate counts (we all seem to be quite fond of nebulous things in this campaign as it is):
http://www.cnn.com/...
---------
Iowa
Updated 2:38 p.m. EDT, Jan 5, 2008
Obama 18
Clinton 18
Edwards 17
-----------
New Hampshire
Updated 11:06 a.m. EDT, Jan 10, 2008
Clinton 11
Obama 12
Edwards 4
Training yourselves in the art of cognitive dissonance does not help your candidate. It makes you look like fools, and hurts you politically, too.
The Clinton campaign downplayed expectations, belittled the caucus process, and wept crocodile tears about voter suppression: http://www.politico.com/...
Before posting diaries attacking the opponent or building up your own, look at the standards you are applying for what you will take as sufficient evidence. Then, stop and think if you would accept that standard if used by another to harm your own side politically.
DailyKos user Thereisnospoon sets an extraordinarily low bar when he characterizes 21 "reports" from his allies on Mr Obama's campaign in tandem with a press release from his campaign's manager as evidence of "Widespread Cheating" supposedly orchestrated by Ms Clinton's campaign.
Qualifying through updates is not sufficient. All that has been demonstrated is that the Obama campaign has heard from their supporters that they had some trouble caucusing in a state that is running a large-turnout caucus for the first time.
Report it as such, dispassionately, or else keep your mouth shut when the other side reports, "Obama Has Shady Ties to That One Guy" which I won't dignify with a link.
In that instance, there were singled-sourced reports about an intern being hired due to an undue influence, and it was otherwise a bunch of innuendos. Mr Obama's supporters rightfully downplayed the evidence standard and the equivocting used by Ms Clinton's supporters in attacking their own candidate.
And please, don't bother with accusations of naivete. I've worked campaigns in Chicago. I've worked union organizing drives. I know all about doing what it takes to win in the field. But we're trying to build a movement here. If you have to lie or spin to do it, it isn't a movement, it's a marketing campaign, and you're not empowering citizens, you're luring consumers.
Your reporting of innuendo as fact justifies the other side's. And on and on forever until there is no end.