In Sifting, Obama Nets Nine More Iowa Delegates

That is pathetic and proves the point that caucuses do not represent the will of the citizenry. I say this as a long time voter in Massachusetts who experienced this first hand at one of our neighbrohood caucuses. People I had never seen before in my district showed up en masse and bullit voted their chosen candidate. It was overwhelmingly intimidating. I had no idea if they were even registered voters as the whole mess was run so loosely. As a result we ended up with a Republican governor and believe me I am from a blue state. The chosen democraticic candidate at the caucus was too far to the left and absolutely unelectable in a general election.
Caucuses are not fairly run and not representative of the citizenry whom they proport to represent.

Look at the shift in mood for Clinton supporters. Yesterday it was all “shame on you Obama” now it’s “sad… Obama is still winning”.
I’ll be the first to say I told you so. Stories never stick in the media. Now our delegate lead as incease and Clintons have decrease.
I Love It

Vanessa writes:
“This Mr.Wright situation will die down and people will realize Obama is the right choice.”
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Vanessa, this will not die down, nor should it. Obama’s very core as presented to the American people is conciliation-bringing people together; “Yes, we can,” or as Gov. Deval Patrick (Barack’s supportor) says, “Together we can.”
Obama’s chosen relationship with Rev. Wright for at least 20 years and his protestations that he knew nothing of the racism that absolutely drips from this man. will sink him in the general election. Hopefully this will happen sooner than that.
I am absolutely perplexed by Obama. Perhaps we need a psychoanalyst to interpret here. Obama is biracial, brought up mostly by white grandparents and a white mother. He longed for and struggled with his blackness. That struggle extends to this day!! That is what we are witnessing, first hand!

It already started dying down. Also the Rekzo situation. He sat down with the Chicago Tribune and ANSWERED all their questions on the investigation.
Now,
It’s time for Cliton to answer some question. Tax Return, First Lady documents, earmarks, and Her involvement with Norman Hsu

Let’s see Obama claims to be the front runner and the people’s choice and that winning a state matters. He also claims he is just like Edwards yet Edwards delegates did not all go to him. Clearly this is a sign he does not have the support and momentum he once claimed.
I called a friend of mine in Iowa (a political science scholar) to ask her if people there pay attention to the news and Internet stuff going on with the election after the first vote. She tells me no, not generally. She said that in Iowa, most people are not politically active and the ones that are will go to the first caucus. But after that most of them just see the additional levels as procedural. I asked her what she thought of the results this weekend. She said she was really surprised because it meant to her that at least half of the precinct delegates either dont like Obama (not going with the flow) or they actually are keeping up with the news events. Either way, she said, the gain in delegates for Obama look like non-indicators of voting yet to come. With the number of voters who are not allowed to participate in the caucuses, the vote come November could be totally different.

I will vote for Senator John McCain even if Dem has Obama/Clinton ticket. I can’t trust anyone who are not well test yet.

DCVoter
Are you telling me this past weekend and Clintonn people actively pitching all of these delegates in Iowa… you think this is a good sign for Clinton?
This is the first thing you have said that is …really sincerely laughable.
I barely can comment. Iowa people are just so not watching the tv’s or internet…
It was not expected that all the delegates would go to Obama and after all of this week ….and he comes out with 9 and Clinton lost 1… you think that is a good sign for Clinton? The rest of them backed Edwards most people in their right mind believed after this week that all of those delegates would either sit it out or go to Clinton.
You are funny.

seah5
You didn’t just use the term “colored”
oy. I’m not a huge PC guy but I am glad there is no delete on some of these blogs.

Vanessa – you really ought to look at real numbers for a change. LOL
1) he did not win all the available delegates
2) the numbers you see on the MSM websites and at his website are “projections, guesses, bets”
3) he does lead in delegates and the popular vote by not by as much as you think
4) there are many voters who have not cast their votes yet and the expectation is strong that Clinton will pass him in the popular vote and possibly in delegates
5) number of solid red states won mean nothing… ie. it is ridiculous to think that 302 votes in Alaska counted as 72% for Obama is an indicator that Alaska will vote for him in Nov… the same is true for all the solid red states he “won”… there are more people in a single county in CA that voted democrat than there are in the entire state of WY… wins in those type of states mean nothing in terms of the general election
But that is ok, in the end if voters are stupid enough to nominate Obama, it will likely be another 8-12 years of republicans in the WH. Dems have only won 3 count them 3 presidential elections in the last 40 years. The republicans are smart enough not to nominate a fringe candidate aka wing candidate. If you care about the country and not just your “idol” you will realize this country is mostly moderate because most people realize that an eagle cannot fly on one wing.

MSNBC is reporting that directly from the Iowa democratic party, Obama picked up 7 Clinton picked up 1, which is a net of 6 for Obama.

seah5,
You’re wrong. Obama has also won more primaries than Clinton. He just won MUCH more caucases. Get your facts straight.
As of right Obama lead is states,
30-14
In popular vote (according to CNN)
by 700,000 +
In delegates (according to CNN after they add yesterday results)
140

dl – i did not say the result was good for Clinton and I specifically stated an Iowan scholar who knows the voters there had an opinion as to the thoughts of the voters there. She said the reasons most people dont caucus in Iowa are: many are farmers who cant afford to take time off, many are workers who cant take the time off, the rest are people with money or students and housewives. Students and housewives are easily bullied and the rich liberals are Obama’s money source. I am surprised all of the delegates did not go to Obama… the fact they didnt doesnt mean good things for Clinton, but it does mean Obama is in trouble.

I think your numbers are wrong Jake, are you getting them from camp Obama?
I can’t see any way that Obama picked up 9 and Clinton lost 1.
Go to the Iowa democratic PArty web site for full results.

Ah there’s the mistake. His TOTAL is 23 delegates from 16, which is a seven delegate gain.
There are only 45 delegates from IOWA.
Jake neds to correct this mistake.

You know MSNBC hates CLinton more than any other candidate, probably ever.
If they are reporting a seven delegate gain for Obama and a one delegate gain for Clinton, its probably correct.

I absolutely agree with MattOhio. Vanessa is clinging to old, pre-Wright voting results. This is a new day. Rev. Wright being embraced by Obama for over 20 years means Obama is not electable, nor should he be. This goes beyond bad judgement or just being “bone headed.”
Obama’s attempt at explaining his relationship with Wright and his categorizing Wright as an “old uncle” is lame at best. Wright is 66 years old; McCain is 71; Hillary Clinton is 62. HIllary and McCain do not preach racism. My mother is 90 years old and you would never hear such vitriol from her mouth. Wright’s problem has nothing to do with his age. He is a racist, plain and simple.

That MSBNC info saying Obama has gained 7 delegates is from last night and is out of date. MSNBC is now reporting the same information as Jake….

You can agree with MattOhio,
but these 9 delegates are agreeing with me. And their the ones who really count to who gets the nomination.

dl – Kerry and Gore and Kennedy are all fringe because they are liberals based on voting records and platforms. Obama has the most liberal voting record in the Senate. I am surprised you didnt know that! LOL

Obama has the most liberal voting record …because …well you know who did those statistics for “liberal” and they based it on two votes…
so yeah I have heard the spin. you know that voting record that he shares with Sen Clinton.
So you would call Gore and kerry “fringe” candidates?
spin

Vanessa and DCVoter
The only wins that matter are large margin wins. Otherwise it doesn’t matter for the general

DCVoter…Man you are a Whiz in the delegate math. Someone on FOXNEWS just pointed out Olberman and Chris Matthews for trying to push the Wright scandal under the rug. They are already calling Obama divisive on racial lines.
DCVoter said:
“Vanessa – let’s see if we go by what your argument of “more states” is, we can tally up the delegates based on states… in other words give them all or nothing wins since this would be more indicative of the will of the voters based on your assessment… ok guess what… that gives Clinton 1400+ and Obama 1200+… oops! It did not work out like you wanted. LOL”

Let’s see, Clinton and Obama voted 90% the same since 2005. There were about 40 things they voted differently on. Most of those 40, Clinton’s votes were fiscally conservative and Obama’s were fiscally liberal (spend money we dont have). The others included Obama voting in favor of tax breaks for oil, energy, and nuclear companies; limits on class action lawsuits (benefits businesses and doctors being sued for hurting people); and get this… Mr. Transparency voted AGAINST making earmark amounts more transparent. He specifically lied about that because he said he proposed an increase in transparency. These kinds of things are RNC fuel in addition to the judgement, credibility, and patriotism issues.

I love the way JAke just says net 9 delegates with no other info, like where these delegates come from and whohis source is.
Like I said MSNBC is reporting directly from the Democratic PArty of IOWA, Obama increased his delegate count by 7, Clinton by 1, which is a net of 6 for Obama.
Until Jake ponies up his source, I’ll go with MSNBC and the Dem Party of IOWA.

The latest change in the amount of Rezko money supplied to Obama political campaigns emphasizes several important considerations.
The positions and past of Barak Obama as presented by the candidate and his campaign are not accurate.
The time leading up to the August convention will prove valuable in providing a realistic and truthful image of Barak Obama.
The media and general public need to actively pursue the positive and negative aspects of all candidates and vote accordingly in November.
If necessary, superdelegates will have to choose the Democratic candidate that can win the electoral college in November.

MattOhio – yes I have been watching the obvious bias in the media on that. Anderson on CNN said covering it was taking away from the real issues. LOL So he thinks questions about judgement, credibility, patriotism, potential ties to money from countries and organizations that support terrorism, and potential favors for criminals are not real issues? The media bias is really obvious but I am not so sure I think it is because they are pro-Obama. I think there may be more realistic reasons like being afraid of losing their jobs because Sharpton or Jackson calls them racists. Take a look at what has happened in the media over the past 2 years… they can be sexists and get away with it or at most get a 2 week suspension but if there is even the slightest accusation of racial tones they get fired.

DCVoter…
The differences in Clinton and obama on policy are so similar that it is strongly disingenuous to use the argument about his “liberalness” but yes …they will use the liberal term in the general…justa s they would with Sen Clinton.
Barack revealed his earmarks how about Clinton? Since her earmarks totals are twice that as Sen Obama.
Yeah transparency
spin

MattOhio if Obama stepped down …the republicans and Mccain would be jumping for joy.
Why do you think that you have not seen a single issue with any of the Clinton scandals brought up yet?

DCVoter stated:
“Take a look at what has happened in the media over the past 2 years… they can be sexists and get away with it or at most get a 2 week suspension but if there is even the slightest accusation of racial tones they get fired.”
This is sooooo true. Take for example Geraldine Ferraro; take for example commentary that the Clintons were pimping out Chelsea.
The best account of the excoriation of Geraldine Ferraro was provided by Pat Buchanon, no less. (I never thought I would be citing to Pat Buchanon for anything but he has my kudoos here.).
Pat Buchanon on Geraldine Ferraro:
Playing By Obama’s Rules

I stand corrected once again. Hillary supporter are in denial.
No wonder the media calls them “uneducated”.
It’s simple math.

DL
You know it is strange that Obama supporters focus on Obama’s future and Clinton’s past. Isnt that a double standard? When will you judge a person by their merits instead of promises? Clinton does have a lot of drawbacks, but she will fight and lead.
We are not trying to win this election to just keep Republicans out. There is also the question of Core American values. Obama doesnt have or represent any of those.

How far we’ve come…Gary Hart’s presidential nomination was ended by a single picture of him with another woman on a boat.
10 years later a president can have extra-marital affairs in the White House.
Now a candidate’s wife can say anti-american remarks such as she has never proud to be an American (until now) and this same candidate can have 20+ year relationshio with a pastor who is vocally anti-American. All this without any real effect (because the media has decided) on his candidacy.
Wonder what the next 20 years will bring?
Amazing.

Sorry typo, those results are Obama 25, Clinton 14, Edwards 6

I can’t understand why Edwards is holding back on an endorsement when most of his supporters including the Iowa delegates have switched to Obama.

MattOhio
Obama has always spoken about unity, togetherness and getting things done. He has never said anything else, but creating a working majority which can make substantive change in Americans’ life. A post racial and post old politics candidate who has the Reagan approach to solving problems, the wisdom of Mahatma Ghandi, the Nixon’s audacity to talk to the enemy, the endurnce of the Lama, the great inspiration of MLKjr and the visionary leadership of JFK. That is the combination in one candidate and if you take it the world will be a better place, America will lead, the will achieve its greatness. Obama08

BKMC
How much do you know about Mahatma Gandhi? He is also credited with dividing India and Pakistan.
Talking about these leaders, putting their pictures in your room, does not say anything about your inner views. If you notice Obama speeches, they are all Wright’s sermons with HATE AMERICA substituted for CHANGE. This is exactly what disturbs me about Obama.

This is NOT a top story… I don’t understand why ABC quickly buried the REAL top story about Obama’s “uncle” among its other news stories.

MattOhio wrote:
“DNC has to nip the Wright scandal now. The wisest solution is for Obama to step-down politics to avoid racial wars in America.
Just imagine the heartbreak we would see if Obama’s kids once in the WH says God Da*n America.”
You are so correct, Matt. Obama needs to be knocked out quickly. Fear not though, if he is not, Obama will never make it past the Republicans. Can’t you see their TV ads featuring snippets of Obama explaining his “old uncle” Rev. Wright and then snippets of Uncle Wright’s racist rants, decrying whites, AmeriKKKa, etc. Take a look at the link I provided to Pat Buchanon’s opinion piece. It is very telling of what the Republicans will and should do in the general election.
Playing By Obama’s rules-Pat Buchanon:

Dave – he voted against it when it came time to vote. He pulled the same wort of thing in IL… authored a bill then voted against it (more than once).

The reason John Edwards dint become president in 2004 is John Kerry’s shaky candidacy. So Kerry doesnt have any pull with Edwards. Edwards sees Obama’s drawbacks clearly.
Edwards will come forward to endorse Hillary and accept VP slot in the process.

Lists…lists…lists… of scandals.
Not one two or three…listas.
It’s not the individual scandal but the actual amount that is such a powerful piece in the general.
Think of how Sen. Clinton has done in the primary and there has been not one mention of the scandals.
So you think that she is going to be stronger in the general and that “ALL those scandals have been vetted”…
well…simply you’re wrong. Think. Think. Think. THHHHiiiinnnnnk!

MattOhio,
Have you been watching the debates??? It’s CLEAR Edward doesn’t like Hillary. Heck, I’ll be the first to admit, some times it seemed as if it were Obama and Edwards against Hillary. That’s why alot of his delegate went Obama.
I believe Edwards hasn’t endorse anyone because he wants the American people to chose. But I believe once Obama lead broadens and he sees Hillary is hurting the Democratic nominee (so will the other superdelegates) he will endorse Obama.

mattohio u just bein 1 sided lets be real and judge from you mind obama and clinton who is more real and transpe dont judge from what the pastor or what lets face real and feature for christ sake clinton is 61yr old and mccain older dont you see their way of reasoning is diffrent from obama cuz they are old 20 century pls we are in the 21st century and we most start to reason more freash why does clinton no wanna release her tax.earmass and face real politics on issue i mean the world is going out of dark ages and we from 21st century most keep it save for are kids for 22 century dont u think so and clinton is from the past and a big liar who can do anything for power.

A significant amount of delegates in the Obama tally result from caucuses which are biased and blatant misrepresentations of actual voter preference.
Neither delegates nor popular vote will win the November presidential election. The electoral college will.
Sift all you want. Obama may sieze control of the nomination, but he will never occupy the White House.

Obama showed us the money. Sen Clinton shows us …nothing….once again… and why once again.
So voting for earmarks yet he shows his earmarks certainly makes someone more trustworthy than someone who doesn’t show us their specific earmarks.
The reason things went down the way they have gone down for so many years is because of hidden government and fear… and fighting.
Who, on each of those best represents a chang ein that.
Yes, no matter how you will spin the response that is Sen Obama.

so why don’t they push the Sen Clinton issues if they want to keep the dems fighting?

MattOhio
you are as bad as the Minister but I am glad you are fighting for Sen Clinton and not Obama.

It is good to see only the facts reported objectively, not ridiculous bloggers’ spin screams nor immature right wing propaganda agents in the media like Fox News and CNN, the likes of Dobbs and Becks always pouting out turgid rubbish while frothing at the mouth, horribily disgusting. Even more disgusting are the fickle minded who are gulled by all that crap. The danger is we get idiots like Bush for 8 years at a time….

In NATIONAL polling Barack has lost 5% points in 48 hours and currently leads Hillary 47%-44%. I give it another 48 hours before Hillary overtakes Obama.
Put that in your caucus pipe and smoke it………

Dave – I dont consider wikipedia a valid source of information since anyone can edit it and provide misinformation. Professionally, I am not allowed to use it with my students per policies of two of my clients.
The transparency of lobbyists is the real transparency that matters. Earmarks are already public information after they pass. Obama simply proposed a dB driven website (something that already exists independent of the government) funded by the feds which is a waste of money. Transparency in lobbying allows the public to know what the politicians are up to and express opposition BEFORE they get into any bill. Obama voted against that. Clinton voted for it. Clinton also has already pledged in her campaign that she will not allow lobbyists to lobby a Clinton adminstration in any form. Obama is just “playing politics with the voters” and consistently is saying one thing in the campaign and doing another behind the scenes.

DCVoter
LOL
so their strategy is to knock out the candidate in the primary who they don’t want to go against by going after Obama now because that strengthens McCain and … because they are afraid of going against Sen Clinton rather than Obama.
…you are funny and spinning.

Then DCVoter why doesn’t Sen Clinton reveal her earmarks?

Kerry and Kennedy I am sure will vote for their constituencies if the rest of superdelegates are voting as the majority of voted delegates have voted.
If the supers make the decision to go against the voted majority… I think all bets are off.

Dave – I looked at your link but I dont agree with you on Obama’s take on things. I think he is soft on transparency and the fact that he is refusing to release earmarks for 6 of the 8 years as state senator and claiming he (mr. writer) did not keep records of anything he did as state senator is hogwash. Even the media pressure on him about that saying they didnt believe him resulted in him mysteriously “finding” some records he kept. I simply do not believe him more and more each day as the vetting continues.

The issue here is that Sen. Obama doesn’t have a record long enough for America to truly know who he is. For a man whose campaign theme is one of unity, it is pure hypocrisy for him to, for 20 years, support a truly divisive church. This shows amazingly poor judgment for a guy that has been working his way up the political ladder for the last decade.
Sadly, any candidate will simply be human, and as such – imperfect. However, it’s up to us to each determine which faults are tolerable and which are not. For me personally, Sen. Obama’s unknowns are too risky.
I will support the democratic candidate, no matter who they are in November. There is too much at stake. While I respect those (in the Obama camp and in the Clinton camp) who can not, I would caution them to think it through. Weigh the disappointment with the cost in American lives in other countries. Weigh the disappointment against the long term possibilities of continuing to erode our liberties through an increasingly conservative Supreme Court. Weigh the disappointment against not only your feelings but in the best interest of the country and a shaky economy.
Politics is serious business, with serious issues. Elevate your game and think beyond your own personal disappointment. Both Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton have said their positions on the issues are very similar. If you aren’t voting on the issues, shame on you!

DCVoter presented his family profile; we must be related!!:
“If Obama gets the nomination, the party will get what it deserves – another loss.” (devout dem turning indie)
“An Obama win as nominee is just what the party needs because he will lose to McCain and finally we will have a chance to rebuild the party and kick out the liberals in power like Dean, Kennedy, and Kerry.” (devout dem)
“If Clinton does not get the nomination, I will vote for McCain to ensure the dems lose so we can rebuild the party.” (devout dem)
“There is no way that unpatriotic *** will ever get my vote.” (a republican leaning independent in the family said this about Obama in reaction to the latest news)
I will add that my family was especially insulted when they heard Rev. Wright savaging “the Italians.” What is up with Wright and “the Italians”? I have heard him attack the Italians in several sermons. News for Rev. Wright: Italy did not exist in the days of JC. Italy is a newer country than ours. “Italians” in general are a generation or two removed from being immigrants here. To castigate them as privileged white folks is laughable.

There are more then the big states in this USA. It takes the little guy to win the battle….You need all the people to make a victory for the party…ALL STATES count.

yes h – all votes count and all states count but in the electoral map, the big swing states determine the outcome because the votes in the other states dont change. Our constitution set up the electoral college to prevent any one section of the country or any one demographic of the country from controlling the WH. It has historically worked exactly as designed and as such the national popular vote does not win elections for President because that would allow the more populous areas to determine who wins and would ignore all the rural states.

I think the recent revelations about Rev. Wright and Obama’s close, 20-relationship had nothing to do with Republican machine. The info was out there forever. I found it many months ago. Recently the Rezko trial started so media was focusing more on Obama’s flaws or lack of judgement. Then we had the savaging of Geraldine Ferraro for saying what many had thought all along. Obama and his strategists made that a huge story and excoriated Ferraro as a racist. Mind you she is considered an elder and heroine in many Democratic circles and is a cancer survivor.
Next came Rev. Wright coverage. That is the sequence. The Republicans had nothing to do with this. Obama brought it on himself. With Rev. Wright in his cubbard, he should have kept his mouth shut on racism. He did not. The Republican strategy would have been to wait for the general election and then bombard the ariwaves with Rev. Wright. That would have been the most effective strategy.
Upshot: Obama did this to himself.

The Founding Fathers were truly wise in providing us with the Electoral College. They knew that change for the sake of change can lead to anarchy.
Men like Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin knew that attempts to seize power would emerge by political interlopers of the Obama caliber.
The presidential election of 2008 will once again prove the vision of the great men who founded this great republic and authored the Constitution.
Neither convention delegates nor popular vote will fill the White House.
The electoral college will provide the President, as it should.

Yes marie I believe you and agree with the exception of the source of information. It is well-known that opposition research is dont by both parties and press releases are issued based on their research to nudge the media into vetting the candidates. The media likes this because they get the “tips” and the stories they do drive up their ratings. All of the vetting details we are seeing happen in the media right now (some biased some not), was mentioned in the press releases I saw that were paid for and issued by the RNC last year. Some of the vetting is brought on by the candidates themselves and some by their dem opponent. But I think the larger amount relates to the RNC opposition because of the timing. McCain just returned from the short break. His camp is launching the electoral contest while McCain travels and works to rebrand the party. It is all quite strategic and not surprising since Rove is still around.