In Sifting, Obama Nets Nine More Iowa Delegates

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?