Political Punch

Hi Justin,
I think we already have more than 70 years of war since Word War II. Are we still in Korean, Japan etc..?

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.

What most "objective" voters understand is that the Wright issue will be a deal breaker in the November election if Obama is the democratic nominee. He cannot win. Most people won't admit it, but Wright's words bring out a visceral fear and outrage in most Non-African Americans. Obama may condemn those words now, but his association has gone on so long that most people won't buy the excuses and the distancing at this late date. If it looks like political expediency, then it probably is - and that rings counter to the ultimate message begin touted by Obama's campaign. Obama's actions are too little too late and the story won't be allowed to die. It's too good for media ratings. And that's too bad for democrats who continue to push Obama as the nominee.

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 MattOhio - just imagine wht would happen if Clinton's church had a doctrine of being "unashamedly white" ... the phrase in itself promotes separatism... I have to agree with the posters who mentioned the hypocrisy because many politicians, including Bush, have had negative effects based on associations with separatist or prejudicial beliefs of their churches or organizations like the KKK. Bush at least had the guts to apologize for Bob Jones Univ and force them to change their prejudicial policy. The rep party has done much under public pressure to try to ensure their important politicians are not extremists or influenced by them politically. The media plays a large role in the public vetting. Yet when the public pressure is on to vet Obama, many are fearful because they are afraid of losing their jobs if they are called racists. This is ludicrous. All prejudicial extremists and separatists should be vetting regardless of race.

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.

Marie, you bring out a point that needs to be emphasized. You don't have to be "affluent," "rich," or "white" to be savaged by the Reverend Wright. All you have to be is non-black.

Anyone with average comprehensive skills simply could not sit in the pews of a church listening to the hate and vulgarity of Reverend Wright for twenty years without assimilating his views, whether publicly or privately.

A majority of hispanic voters have realized this and voted accordingly. The rest of the Democratic electorate has about five months to wake up to reality of division that an Obama administration would bring to America.

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 hear ya Jerri and marie - both have valid points. Ideally, voters should vote on the issues but how do they do that when the positions are mostly the same? There are going to be some who vote based on emotions and some who will look at the 'resumes'. There are a few who will look at both. The interesting thing we are seeing here is: Clinton has the stronger resume and Obama had the stronger image because he was an unknown and is still a mystery to most. From an opposition perspective, you cannot change the resume but you can change perception. So far, the attempts to challenge the resumes hasnt worked or has backfired. So now we are seeing the vetting push based on perception of judgement, credibility, and patriotism. Time will tell if that is working in either candidates favor.

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.

I havent seen anyone talk about this but it was the topic of conversation this morning in my family:

No matter who wins the WH, Congress will determine what is done to help improve the economy, create jobs, etc. Congress will continue to support the troops and national security needs. 2 of the 3 candidates are not having their patriotism questioned. If McCain wins the WH, a democratic congress could keep him under control. With the increase in dem registrations and the number of congressional elections, it is possible that McCain could win the WH but the dems would increase power in Congress. That in itself could keep the reps under control and the country out of war now that McCain is saying we might continue troop reduction and redeployment as the Iraqis begin to takeover.

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.

Ken- I agree based on the voting results and trends. On things that matter to men, statistics clearly show sexism is alive and well but racism just really isnt an issue in employment and sports anymore.

However, I think this latest RNC tactic to expose and question Obama's judgement and patriotism might backfire and swing the white males back to Clinton. Best guess would be half will swing back to Clinton and the other half will swing to McCain. The larger question is how will they vote in Nov.

I think the most important thing is for the dems to win in Nov and that will require a unified party. With the latest revelations, I think it is possible to unite behind Clinton but I do not think it is possible to unite behind Obama.

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!

Now, there is an interesting perspective. Kind of reminds me of a church member who doesn't remember.

Apparently, dl, you did not listen to John Kerry's remarks on his last television interview.

Senator Kerry stated that he endorsed Obama and would support his candidacy up to and including support in the August convention.

As for Ted Kennedy, if you are sure of how he will vote you are the only one.

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.

I agree SJ. Many of the core democrats I have talked to (including my own family) are taking a stand. They feel Clinton is the only chance for the Dems to win the WH. Statements I have heard them tell me include:

"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 am laughing at the dems fighting now my boy Mac will win anyway. The dems blew a sure shot with Clinton." (devout rep)

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.

After watching Bill Bradley (Obama supporter) this morning on Meet the Press, I realized an important point regarding the support being offered in the Democratic nomination contest.

As a whole, white men in America fear the prospect of having a woman as Commander in Chief and will do whatever it takes to eliminate that possibility.

That includes supporting a candidate against the will of their own constituency (Ted Kennedy and John Kerry).

It would seem that gender prejudice is far greater in American politics than racial prejudice.

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

DCVoter

LOL

sorry I meant to say so their strategy is to knock out the candidate in the primary who they 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.

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.

SadStateOfAffairs,

Actually in another 48 more hours, Obama is likely to GAIN those percentage back after winning those DELEGATESS.

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.

Is does not matter he can win all the delegates and get the nomination the question is can he beat McCain?

Answer. NO, then we have a bigger problem all the Hillary supporters will say I told you so, Dean will have to carry that blame, some will stick around , other will go Republican or Indy, anyway you look at it the Democrat party is dead.

Many will just "pull the handle" for Republicans in every race from here on in, that is the sad state the democrat party is now in.

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.........

dl - because going after Obama strengthens McCain and going after Clinton can cause a backlash in Rep women. Try reading some of the republican discussions if you want answers on their strategies. LOL

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....

Dave - In 2006, Obama voted against an amendment to increase transparency in government lobbying (S. 2349) [source: U.S. Senate].

Bill Frist is an untrustworthy Republican so I wouldnt put too much stock in what he says in a PAC website.

MattOhio

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

So why don't they push the Sen Clinton scandals if they want to keep the dems fighting?

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

Obama is a separatist militant with Liberation theology in his mind like the ones taught in Madarasas for Jihad.

Clinton and McCain are not any of the above.

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.

dl - my RNC friends tell me that their goal (and this is widely supported in the republican media on TV and radio) is to keep the dems fighting. The rep party only has one chance to win in Nov and that is to divide the party so that a large enough percentage will crossover and vote Republican in Nov because they are not happy with the dem nominee. They succeeded in doing that so far. Now that McCain's camp has solidified his plans for the electoral race, they are fueling the fire for the media to go after Obama's patriotisim and judgement to strengthen McCain's position. A side benefit is keeping the fighting going so that anti-Obama voters will support McCain in Nov if he manages to get the nomination. Of course, I am sure you know this. LOL

American Voter - yes I agree, the entire nomination process in both parties is messed up and smells to high heaven of non-democracy.. i expect that of the RNC but had hoped the DNC would be smarter... The Australians have the right idea - mandatory voting, national registration, and then the opportunity to vote 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice on the ballots which are all secret ballot

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.

If you think that singing "god dam america" is something that a MOTHER or FATHER-HUSBAND or WIFE that lost a loved one too this war, can forget, then your thinking of change is going to Disney World for a Rev-tax wright-off
by wothah

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.

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....

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.

Vanessa, he gets in and then what. He doesn't seem to have everyone's best interests n mind. Will the Rev. Wright swear him in and sing God D America ?

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!

I was A Ardent Supporter of Obama! Worked so hard for him in so many ways! I could Never Vote For him in any way shape or form now... This is too much to take...He has too many skeletons... the Republicans can Destroy him..... Now there is the Issue of Credibility Reverand Wright?and Larry Sinclair... Is this really going to Destroy the Democratic Party! God Save America!

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.

DCVoter

I don't think the Republicans agree with you...why else would they be throwing everything they got at Obama now before he gets the nomination...and yet at ...Clinton...nothing.

Youn all are so swept up in the old protectionist arguments for the Clintons that you are not seeing all of the facts right in front of you.

Look at Fox news...if you want to see who they are more afraid of

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).

If a pledged delegate can suddenly switch from Clinton to Obama- where is the democracy here ? The Dem party has really messed up their primary process- it needs to be simplified to be like the Republicans as a winner takes all- Hillary would have been the nominee a long time back- sparing us the prospect of a Dem nomniee whose mentor hates our beloved country

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:

I hope the superdelegates are watching these results.

Maybe this foreshadows Edwards endorsement.

The one person I believe that can call on Edward is John Kerry.

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.

A race between Clinton and McCain would be a left-leaning moderate against a right-leaning moderate. Both have experience that has been validated by the experts even though their experience is of different types (Clinton's is broad and McCain's is narrow.) Transparent earmarks are an indicator of a Senator "doing their job for their constituencies" and McCain has none. The race would be close and totally dependent on whether voters think the economy is more important or if having a military person as President will make them feel safer. The good thing about that race is that the voters would at least get a moderate no matter what the outcome is.

A race between Obama and McCain would be liberals against conservatives because of the respective social wings. Given the fact that people in this country are generally more conservative socially, combined with the questions about patriotism and judgement now for Obama, I think McCain would easily win because I think there are strong indicators that swing voters will not support Obama. This year's swing voters are white Independents.

Remember, last election Independents only accounted for 26% of the country and they split in the GE. This time they account for 44% of the country and the experts said last night that most of them are not participating in the primaries for either party. They did say the country is leaning dem because registration in the dem contests show increases of 14% and the rep registrations have decreased 1%. Turnout nationwide is expected to exceed the 61% we saw in 2004.

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.

Obama should go home. Give it up. Everyone I know is abandoning Obama. If Obama gets the nomination, McCain will win, and we will be stuck with George Bush's third term under McCain. God Help America.

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

What are you talking about, DC Voter? Obama wrote the earmark transparency bill with Tom Coburn. He wrote the bill! He didn't vote against earmark transparency.

Here's Coburn's press release:

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.

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.

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

obama did the right thing, by denouncing all hate sppech, at the same time, its a free country and he cant tell anyone what to say or not say! shows the great president he will make!

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.

Hillary did not release her earmark. She was asked on Friday by a reporter and refused to answer. She's been hiding her earmarks since 2001.

Hiding her tax return, the documents for both the Clintons library and First Lady documents.

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.

dl - her earmarks are readily available as per several media sources... so Obama is spinning that to try to take the attention away from the fact he only released earmarks for 2 of the 8 years as state senator. Both candidates believe that earmarks are not all bad. Both said they should be related to the bills they are attached to. Both said there should be greater transparency.

Obama voted against transparency and Clinton voted for it.

Clinton's earmarks on the defense spending bill are 100% related to providing support for the military and increased national security projects here at home. Obama's only earmark on that bill was to try to get some money for disabled children (totally unrelated and a good way to hide what he does).

I noticed as usual you dont stay on topic and defend or promote Obama's position. Why is that dl? Your arguments are taken almost verbatim from the RNC opposition research press releases. Why is that dl? LOL

I stand corrected once again. Hillary supporter are in denial.

No wonder the media calls them "uneducated".

It's simple math.

Your link to CNN just has the original results and yes 16 original delegates plus 7 for Obama as reported by every other news source and the Iowa democratic party puts him at 23.

NO ONE but Mr Tapper is reporting 25 delegates for Mr. Obama, in fact Mr Tapper isnt even reporting that he's just reporting a nine delegate spread without any qualification whatsoever.

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

Sorry Fox news is also reporting only a 7 delegate gain for Obama directly from the Dmeocratic PArty of Iowa.

Again what is JAke's source, because I'll take the demm PArty of Iowa over jakes source which is probably the Obama compaign.

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

The bias you are refering to in the media...it may be that since they all have met the two candidates over and over again...they actually believe Obama.

rather than the spin everyone who doesn't know him are trying to do.

You think if Obama really was of that mindset these people in the media would want him in the White House.

they have to live here to.

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

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.

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.

Unless the Iowa demmocratic party has changed their minds these are the results of yesterday's county conventions.

From NBC's Chuck Todd
We have final delegate allocation estimates directly from the Iowa Democratic Party based on today's 99 county conventions. The results, Obama indeed did gain 7 delegates to up his total from 16 (earned on Jan. 3) to 23 now. Clinton upped her total by 1, from 15 to 16 and Edwards dropped 8 delegates to 6. Those six will be up for grabs, perhaps, at the Iowa Democratic Party state convention in June.

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.

Democracy at work! This is pretty funny.

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.

In general election, the rule is winner take all. I can see Mr. Obama is already lost.

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.

dl, your math still doesn't work.

First of all, no one is reporting Obama with 25 delegates, but lets say he does have 25 and she has 14, also no one reporting that, but lets assume your right.

He was one delegate ahead of her before, now he would be 11, making a net of 10 delegates, not nine.

And again no one is reporting these numbers.