Harry Reid (Photo: Getty)

As the news broke that Nevada Senator Harry Reid was in a car accident, a major paper in his home state, the Las Vegas Review Journal, mistakenly identified the Democratic Senate Majority Leader as a Republican.

"U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, R-Nev., 72, was taken to the emergency room at University Medical Center in Las Vegas Friday afternoon following a traffic accident," the story initially said.

The error has since been corrected. Obviously, this was a fast breaking story and these types of mistakes happen. Unfortunately for those who report on breaking political news, "R" is right next to "D" on computer keyboards. The Observer reached out to Las Vegas Review Journal Editor Michael Hengel to see if he had any comment on the situation. As of this writing, he has yet to respond.

Mr. Reid was taken to the hospital after what appeared to be a rear-end crash on an Interstate that runs parallel to the Las Vegas Strip. According to New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney, Mr. Reid and his security detail are all "fine" and the Senator "walked into" the hospital.

Nevada Highway Patrol Office spokesman Jeremie Elliott told the AP six vehicles were involved in the apparent chain-reaction crash, including two Las Vegas police vehicles, two civilian vehicles and two Capitol Police vehicles.

View a screencap of the Google news result showing the Las Vegas Review Journal's original Reid lede below.

“In terms of the delegate count we came out with a one-delegate lead,” David Plouffe said in a conference call that just ended with reporters. When asked if that meant Obama had actually won the caucus, Plouffe replied, “We’ll leave that to you guys,” and “It’s very important numerically.”

Another Obama aide, Jeff Berman, who ran the campaign’s delegate selection, explained the convoluted process by which Obama apparently had won more delegates despite losing the state by a significant margin to Clinton.

What it all meant, Plouffe said, is that the candidates are destined for a "long and protracted” nominating process.

UPDATE: The Clinton campaign begs to differ. Here's their statement:

UPDATE: Here's the latest on this matter from the Nevada Democratic Party:

The AP-circulated calculation she's referring to is Obama 13, Clinton 12.

In a phone interview just now, Weeks said that exit polling he had seen today in today’s Nevada caucus suggested that Hillary Clinton won by a three-to-one margin among Hispanic voters. He also said she had won a majority of the state’s union vote despite the endorsement of Barack Obama by the powerful Culinary Workers Union.

Despite the unmistakable expectations-lowering by the Clinton campaign in the last few days, Weeks said, “The organization here always kept on program everywhere across the state, we didn’t see any disintigration of support.”

He said that the exit polls he had seen indicated that Clinton had won 43 percent of the state’s union members, compared to 32 percent for Obama. He said that they helped win seven out of nine of the at-large caucuses in casinos (which supporters of Clinton had challenged in court) by doggedly canvassing those sites.

“We had started organizing along there,” Weeks said, “letting them know they could caucus for Hillary.”

But moral victories are worthless at this point.

Obama needed a win in Nevada and he didn't get it. Now, even if she loses South Carolina to Obama next Saturday, Clinton will still be able to claim a split of the four pre-February 5 contests in the Democratic race.

Winning two of the four early states will more than satisfy the party establishment, a group that is magnetically attracted to safe choices. Most of the establishment has backed Clinton from the start of the campaign and Obama needed to deliver a series of early and decisive blows to jar them loose.

The party's rank-and-file masses, too, like to play follow-the-leader. Hillary's formidable edge in national polls and in big states (like California) can be directly attributed to the popular sense that she is "supposed" to win. Had she suffered a string of early defeats, those numbers would have melted away. Instead, she will now enter February 5—when nearly two dozen states will vote—as the same clear-cut favorite she was when she entered the race more than a year ago.

In fact, her win in Nevada today could be chalked up to the same phenomenon. Through all of 2007, she led the state by lopsided margins, the result of casual support from voters who knew her name and expected her to win. But Obama's Iowa win on January 3 established him as a viable contender, just as Hillary's third place finish threw her inevitability into question. Suddenly, the Nevada establishment—in the form of the Culinary Workers Union—felt emboldened enough to buck Hillary and endorse Obama. And rank-and-file voters suddenly had a change of heart, too: Hillary's giant lead vanished almost overnight.

Had she then lost New Hampshire, that Nevada trend would only have continued. More establishment support would have made its way to Obama, and even some of Hillary's establishment backers would have hedged their bets behind the scenes. And Obama, as the newly "inevitable" candidate, would have emerged as the clear leader in polls.

Instead, her New Hampshire win froze the mass movement to Obama, and her Nevada backers, instead of hedging their bets, dug their heels in. And now she has won two straight states and fully restored her imposing position, even if the road may be a little bumpier than originally expected. Now, it's hard to see how she loses her lead in states like California and New Jersey, no matter what happens in South Carolina next Saturday.

He was the only candidate --besides Ron Paul -- to sink significant time and money into the state, where he enjoyed at least one built-in advantage, thanks to Nevada's sizable Mormon population.

The Romney campaign will now talk up the victory as another "gold medal." And he campaign will point out that their candidate has now won three early contests (Wyoming and Michigan were the others) and will proclaim that the G.O.P. race is really about delegates -- meaning that Romney, with a string of first- and second-place showings, is in good shape.

These claims are somewhat problematic, though. The early contests on both sides are about momentum, not delegates. History shows that the first series of contests, in both parties, serves to winnow the field and produce a front-runner, who then gobbles up delegates in the later contests. Winning small states that no other candidates seriously contest -- as is the case for Romney in Nevada and Wyoming -- doesn't mean a lot.

In the early going, candidates are generally allowed to pick their fights. For instance, Fred Thompson has long-maintained that he would make his stand in South Carolina and that the states that precede it don't matter to him. The strategy may seem ridiculous, but the media has refused to declare him dead -- even after barely registering in the early states -- until the South Carolina results are in. If he doesn't post a strong showing, he will be officially written off. The same is true for Rudy Giuliani in Florida, and the same was true for John McCain in New Hampshire.

Originally, Romney identified Iowa and New Hampshire as his "statement" venues. He'd post wins in the lead-off states, become the front-runner, and then watch the later states fall like dominos. But he flunked his own test, finishing second in both states. Only then did his campaign start talking about delegates and silver and gold medals.

Romney's goal today is to preserve the burst of momentum he received from his Michigan victory to stay viable for Florida, which will vote on January 29. So his campaign is playing up Nevada and downplaying expectations in South Carolina.

He can do better by exceeding expectations in South Carolina tonight, a state that has been vigorously contested by most of the G.O.P. field. If so, it would be a meaningful development for Romney. But winning Nevada, where his main competition was Ron Paul, proves little.

This is not to say that Saturday’s caucuses are do-or-die test for Obama. Even in defeat in Nevada, Obama would be in a strong position to win in South Carolina, the final official Democratic test before February 5. In other words, Obama would still be able to enter “Super-Duper Tuesday” with wins in two of the first four contests, making him plenty viable in the nearly two dozen states that will vote that day, and the likely winner in at least a handful of them.

But that might not be good enough. It’s important to keep in mind that Obama is the insurgent candidate in the Democratic race; vastly better funded than any previous insurgent and a genuine celebrity to boot, but the insurgent nonetheless. Denying the nomination to Hillary Clinton will require more than trading primary and caucus wins through the winter and early spring.

In Democratic politics, a tie goes to the establishment favorite, who can count on hundreds of extra votes at the party’s convention, courtesy of the elected officials and party leaders who are automatically awarded delegate choice and who are magnetically attracted to the safe, “inevitable” candidate. Not surprisingly, early surveys of these “super delegates” from the Associated Press finds them lopsidedly favoring Hillary.

To win, then, Obama must turn the prevailing narrative of the Democratic race on its head. He must deal Clinton an unrelenting series of defeats in the early primaries, generating enough momentum for himself to build clear leads in national and key state polls.

History is clear: When one candidate wins successive “major tests,” a giant chunk of the party’s rank-and-file falls into line. States in which that candidate previously trailed badly become dead even. And in states that were already even, that candidate becomes the clear favorite. John Kerry and Al Gore witnessed this phenomenon after each pulling off the Iowa-New Hampshire one-two punch. And Bill Clinton’s back-to-back big days on “Junior Tuesday” and Super Tuesday in 1992 made him the runaway favorite for the nomination.

Obama had a chance to join their ranks two weeks ago in New Hampshire, only to let it slip through his fingers. How close he came is instructive: Throughout 2007, he trailed Clinton by about 20 points in national polls, the result of the masses of rank-and-file voters who accepted Hillary’s campaign as little more than a coronation. This is also why she has consistently led by similar margins in the major states—like California—that will vote later in the process. But one upset win in Iowa, coupled with Hillary’s third place showing, tightened those numbers dramatically. And one more, in New Hampshire, would have made him the odds-on favorite—and the establishment types who have favored Hillary because she is supposed to win would have begun defecting, overtly or subtly.

But by winning New Hampshire, Hillary stopped the bleeding and provided reassurance both to the establishment and to the fickle masses of the Democratic electorate who like nothing better than falling in line behind whoever looks most like a front-runner.

Which brings us back to Nevada. There are only two contests between now and February 5. Obama is already being penciled in as the South Carolina winner, so he won’t get a major boost out of a win there. But a victory in Nevada, which the media is treating as an even match-up, would be a different story. Clinton led in the state by large margins until recently and has contested the caucuses vigorously.

Even Nevada and South Carolina wins wouldn’t put Hillary on the ropes the way Iowa did. It will take more than one surprise loss for the establishment (and the media) to write her off now. But it’s Obama’s best—and only chance—of turning February 5 into something other than a fatal draw.

"I hope they can caucus," said Leahy. "I am one who believes in doing everything possible to get people to vote. If it means opening up extra voting places, having a mobile place, whatever works is what I believe in."

The Nevada State Education Association, a teachers union considered to be supportive of Hillary Clinton, filed the lawsuit opposing the casino caucus sites two days after the state's Culinary Union endorsed Obama. Many of the workers who would benefit from the casino caucus sites belong to the Culinary Union. Clinton's supporters, including Bill Clinton, have aggressively argued that the caucus sites, which were agreed upon in March, favor union members above other potential caucusgoers in Nevada.

Leahy didn't see the logic in increasing the fairness of an election by blocking people's votes.

"I realize this is a decision they have to make in Nevada as what they're going to do but I've always been of the assumption that we should do everything possible to allow as many people to vote as they can," Leahy said. He added, "If somehow they were shutout from being able to caucus, I think it reduces the legitimacy of the results."

David Plouffe, the Obama campaign manager, then jumped on the line and pointed out that "these are the rules that have been in place since March," and that while the Obama campaign "will obviously abide by whatever happens today" in the court, he thinks allowing the caucuses to be held in nine casino sites was the more democratic thing to do.

Leahy then added "The rules were set and they're following the rules, and the rules should always be interpreted in a way that allows the most people to participate."

"If you are shut out from participating in the nominating process," Leahy said, "you are going to be discouraged from voting all the way down."

McCain leads Mike Huckbee 29-23 in South Carolina. [C-SPAN/Reuters/Zogby]

Huckabee and McCain are tied for first place in North Carolina. Obama leads Clinton, but just slightly inside the margin of error. [Survey USA]

And here's a Massachusetts poll that says Romney leads McCain among Republicans, but if a Republican were to get into the White House, Massachusetts voters as a whole prefer McCain over Romney, and by a wide margin. Also, despite John Kerry’s endorsement of Obama, Clinton still leads Democrats in Massachusetts. [State House Poll]

A little story about me: Many years ago, back when George W. Bush was just the agreeable governor of Texas, I used to work for a Washington weekly newspaper called The Hill, covering the Democrats in Congress. I dealt with a lot of press secretaries and, as a result, ended up getting stuck on a lot of mass-email lists. I quit the job and moved to New York, but for a long time the all-capitalized subject lines kept materializing in my inbox: "DEMOCRATIC WHIP BONIOR ATTACKS..."; "SENATOR CLELAND PROPOSES..."

It seemed like it was more trouble than it was worth to unsubscribe, and gradually, as mailing lists got updated and press secretaries moved on, the press releases came less and less often. Eventually, one holdout remained: the Democratic Governors Association. No matter what I did, or what far corner of the world I went to, the DGA followed me, keeping me up to date on the doings of the likes of Jennifer Granholm and Rod Blagojevich. A lot of the press releases concerned New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, which was only natural, considering that he was the chairman of the organization from 2004 until earlier this month, and, as everyone knows, is interested in running for president in 2008. At first, these self-promoting missives were annoying, just more junk mail that squirmed through the spam filter. But eventually the DGA's persistent updates became kind of touching--reminders of a time when I was younger and peace and surpluses reigned throughout the land.

Then, just yesterday, something strange happened. Right around 5 p.m., a message popped up in my inbox. It was from the something called the "2008 Presidential Draft Committee," and the subject line read: "ADVISORY: NEVADANS TO MAKE MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT 2008." The message coyly disclosed that "more than 50 prominent Nevadans" would be unveiling something this morning, and noted that "Nevada is scheduled to be the second state in the nation to hold a nomination contest, a caucus."

Initially, I assumed this had to do with the fact I was writing the Politicker this week. But then I realized that the address this mysterious message came to, my personal email account, was not the same address I put up on this website. (Sorry--I learned my lesson about mailing lists...)

So lo and behold, I sit down at the computer this morning, and I am greeted by the following message:

I wonder how these grassroots activists will convince Richardson to run?

UPDATE: Commenter Bouldin notes the that release uses an archaic, and rather unfortunate (Freudian?), spelling of the word "linchpin."

-- Andrew Rice

When the Democratic National Committee met in Chicago over the weekend, they approved a calendar that figures to empower four states—voting over a 15-day period in January 2008—to reduce the pack of candidates to no more than two or three, probably with a clear front-runner among them. Iowa, as always, will lead off with its caucuses, followed five days later by caucuses in Nevada. The New Hampshire primary will take place three days after Nevada, and South Carolina will host a primary a week after that.

More than anything, political campaigns are shaped by expectations and momentum, meaning that Hillary for President—a lavishly funded restoration effort begun even before Bill Clinton’s second term expired—will at the very least need to post a win in one of those early contests. And the problem for Hillary is that it’s all too easy to see her coming up short in all of them.

The trouble begins in Iowa, whose finicky caucus-goers practice a defiant brand of cornfield populism that isn’t bowled over by media stars, and that demands from candidates more—much more—than the mushy, November-minded rhetoric that Hillary has so far offered on the Iraq war.

Her Iowa predicament can be summarized in two words: John Edwards.

Consider yourself excused if you haven’t kept tabs on Mr. Edwards since 2004. Now an exiled former Senator based out of Chapel Hill, N.C., he has been toiling under the radar, and the opinion-shaping class in Washington sneers at his prospects. But look for yourself and you’ll find a new Mr. Edwards emerging before your eyes: an unreconstructed, Potomac-phobic crusader for economic justice who has persuasively repented for voting as a Senator to send America to war.

Very quietly, Mr. Edwards’ support has edged up in national polls over the last year—all while his ’04 running mate, John Kerry, has nosedived to single digits—and his message and style seem tailor-made for the Hawkeye State. Startlingly, a Des Moines Register poll in June gave Mr. Edwards the early Iowa lead, 30 percent to Hillary’s 26.

From Iowa, the race will move to Nevada. Sort of. Probably. To protect its primacy, New Hampshire is threatening to move its primary to an earlier date, ahead of Nevada (and Iowa, for that matter). And even if the D.N.C.’s calendar stays intact, it is far from a given that every candidate and media outlet will accord Nevada the same treatment as Iowa and New Hampshire.

But rest assured that Hillary, as a wounded front-runner, would be under the gun there. And Nevada, like Iowa, is not natural turf for her, in part because caucuses—unlike primaries—are dominated by true believers and ideologues. Mr. Edwards, especially if he’s riding a wave of post-Iowa “Big Mo,” would be formidable, armed with a message that matches the state’s demographics. Add to the mix the pull of regional and ethnic pride that would bolster Bill Richardson, the governor of nearby New Mexico and the son of a Mexican immigrant, and Hillary could well find herself in a Silver State pickle.

The third state in the ’08 line-up, New Hampshire, seems the most promising for Hillary. After all, it was the Granite State—or, more precisely, the skillful spinning of media-savvy Clintonistas—that transformed Bill Clinton into the Comeback Kid 14 years ago, when it was decreed that his seven-point loss to Paul Tsongas represented a moral victory for the ages.

But that ignores the fallout she’d suffer from losing Iowa and Nevada. Recall that as 2004 began, Howard Dean was treated as the de facto Democratic nominee, a cash-flushed insurgent poised to run the table through the primary season. But then he finished third in Iowa—and failed to win a single primary (besides Vermont). Voters shun dying campaigns: How would Hillary look if she limps into New Hampshire?

And if she can’t string it together in any of the first three states, you needn’t waste any breath wondering about the fourth, South Carolina. Tellingly, Harold Ickes, a top Clinton family booster, has already launched a P.R. push to discredit the Palmetto State’s ’08 primary, arguing that the playing field there is slanted in favor of Mr. Edwards, a South Carolinian by birth. It’s an altogether specious assertion—Mr. Edwards’ roots are in North Carolina—that suggests the Clinton forces are already looking to steal a page from their ’92 playbook.

After all, if Hillary can lower the bar enough in the early states, she could be in position to declare victory without actually winning. Just like the Comeback Kid.