Five days after the presidential candidates finished battling for the hearts and minds of Nevada voters, a big question remains: Who won the Democratic contest?
Did Hillary Rodham Clinton score a clear-cut victory, as this newspaper reported? Or was the outcome a split decision between the New York senator and Barack Obama, as the New York Times initially said?
The two campaigns, which quickly departed after Saturday's caucuses for new political battlegrounds, continue to squabble over the point. On Wednesday, they also traded allegations of dirty politics in the Nevada contest and called for an investigation by the state's Democratic Party.
No one disputes that Clinton took away a majority in last weekend's precinct voting, defeating Obama, 51% to 45%.
But since then, the two sides have argued about potentially crucial national convention delegates. Obama campaign officials quickly asserted that the Illinois senator narrowly edged Clinton in so-called pledged national convention delegates, 13 to 12.
The Obama campaign put out a statement, under the candidate's name, saying that "we came from over twenty-five points behind to win more national convention delegates than Hillary Clinton because we performed well all across the state, including rural areas where Democrats have traditionally struggled."
The claim was highlighted in initial reports of the caucuses, and a New York Times headline Sunday morning declared: "Obama 2nd, but Takes 1 More Delegate."
Political experts and party officials say that the Obama campaign's claim, at least in its original form, was wrong. The Democrats haven't actually awarded any national delegates from Nevada.
In a more general sense, the assertion had some foundation. Obama could win more national convention delegates if some assumptions prove to be on target.
All told, the flap highlighted some of the complexities of the presidential caucuses and the delegate-selection processes, complexities that can confound voters, and open the door to political gamesmanship.
"There is a lot of misunderstanding not only among voters, but apparently with the Obama campaign as well," said David Damore, a political scientist at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
"It is a confusing process," he added, "and it's the first time we've done something like this on this scale in the state."
