The United States of America is and always will be a racist country. Thats how America started and thats how it will end. The white people of america will never ever in our life time have the courage enough to elect a man with an ounce of black blood in his veins. Lets remember, his mother is white, father Kenyan. The man is bi-racial. He's white and he is black.
Still white people will find no comfort knowing his mother is white.

Racism exists only in the sick minds of the media who spends most of their time inventing non-exicsting problems in our society, Obama did not loose, Hillary won, that is all, period, lets see what happens next.

take a look at this website, they have every county listed and how the votes were counted...there is a difference between the Diebold counts and the hand counted votes. We are losing our democracy unless we the people force a change. Why are 'they' saying the manner of voting can't change until 2012?

http://www.legitgov.org/
http://www.legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news
Where Paper Prevailed, Different Results By Lori Price 09 Jan 2008
2008 New Hampshire Democratic Primary Results --Total Democratic Votes: 286,139 - Machine vs Hand (RonRox.com) 09 Jan 2008
Hillary Clinton, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 39.618%
Clinton, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 34.908%
Barack Obama, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 36.309%
Obama, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 38.617%
Machine vs Hand:
Clinton: 4.709% (13,475 votes)
Obama: -2.308% (-6,604 votes)

2008 New Hampshire Republican Primary Results --Total Republican Votes: 236,378 Machine vs Hand (RonRox.com) 09 Jan 2008
Mitt Romney, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 33.075%
Romney, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 25.483%
Ron Paul, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 7.109%
Paul, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 9.221%
Machine vs Hand:
Romney: 7.592% (17,946 votes)
Paul: -2.112% (-4,991 votes)

Personally I am sorry to ever see the race card played. Why should it make any difference what color someone's skin is, or if they are male or female, a Catholic, a Mormon or a Jew, Italian, Polish, Spanish, German or an American Indian? As long as humans are human, and they don't attempt to force their religious beliefs upon us, or to force race, or gender upon us, we should look upon one another as humans, nothing else.

When it comes to gender, and females have had to fight their way to equality, a fight is still on going. It was not that long ago in our history that women were not even allowed to vote. That is an issue that can be mentioned, race is an issue that can be mentioned, for it is an issue. But to play the race card and claim it is the reason people did, or did not, vote for an individual, is taking the issue to far.

If the KKK gang shows up and burns a cross during a debate or at a polling place, now that would be racial. Certainly such factors as race, gender, and nationality influence some people and there is not a lot to be done about Archie Bunker types, except to ignore them or debate them when appropriate. It is not at all likely those types had any meaningful influence upon the results of the NH primary. The manner in which the votes were counted, may indeed be a significant factor. ___ That is an issue we cannot ignore.

Well, as a New Hampshire voter, I will say this:

There are a ton of "undeclared" voters in this state, who are not affiliated with either party.

In this particular race, many people had a difficult time making up their minds, and many did not make up their minds about who to vote for until the last minute. I talked to people the day before the election who were still undecided.

I think many people here were offended by the 'making fun of Hillary crying' issue. It's been quite a topic of discussion. And the timing would be right for it to have knocked a few fence-sitters in her direction.

It is a very "New Hampshire attitude" that nobody is going to tell us who to vote for. In that spirit, many people will not talk to pollsters--they pretty much stalk us before the elections, as our state becomes the momentary epicenter of the political process and sometimes people simple don't want to talk to them...

I appreciate the balance in the article, and the issues raised, but I think there are also some "place specific" factors to consider.

How ironic if that were the case. Part of Obama's appeal to the right and the centre is his declaration that racism is now irrelevant in the US and his enthusiastic identification with white, middle class attitudes and positions. He makes such Americans feel good about themselves - a black man they can vote for, a black man who makes Americans in denial about the real extent of racism still extant in the country feel good about themselves and their nation. Possibly it's racism that makes them vote for him, rather than against.

I'm voting for Obama "only" to prove I'm not a racist.

Racism may have played a part in the NH primary voting. However, the American media is failing to acknowledge the elephant in the room. Namely, the reality is that the Hillary Campaign had to engage in dirty tricks in order to win. The media has failed to report on the fact that the Clinton campaign sent flyers and made phone calls to NH voters just before the votes were cast in an deliberate attempt to distort Barack Obama's pro-choice record.

RE: DEWEY BEATS TRUMAN

Seems that the samples were drawn from phone books (in the case of Dewey and Truman) and car registrations at a time when only wealthier people had these things. Those who tended to vote Democrat were underrepresented in the sample because, at the time, they were less likely than Republicans to have phones.

If the sample is unrepresentative, then the results are bogus.

Look at the CNN polls and their inherent flaws as seen on CNN.

1) They do not account for early voting which closed 12/31/07. About 10,000 votes were cast for democrats of which 9 in 10 went to Hillary. Iowa had not happened when the votes were cast. Could there have been a difference? Probably Clinton would still have won but the numbers for her and Obama would have been closer to the final election tallies.

2) Polls were done by calling cell phone numbers. The younger the callee the more likely to have a cell phone and to say Obama. The older the person the more likely not to have a cell phone and to remeber the great economy with Bill and want another Clinton neglecting NAFTA and Free Trade altogether as most Americans seem to have very poor memories. In other words nostalgia.

Prejudice is difficult to eradicate but we have come a long way.

I will not vote for either in the primary or the Nov vote.

Marglo, Sandyk, and others concerning Diebold electronic voting machines: I would not doubt this at all! See Jim Hightower's tracking of these fraudulent hacked systems, and, as mentioned the "Black Box Voting" lady tracking it all. Remember Cleland? - the disabled VET congressman? His districts were historically democratic - suddenly switch strongly Republican - with he help of Diebold. There were districts with these machines that documented more votes than were in the districts! Exit polls were WAY out of line with results in some districts - VERY rare to impossible historically. Some actually SAW their demo vote record as BUSH votes. If you folks don't see the consistent theme of Republican interests (interconnected with the electronic machines) attacking the democratic base (see Gonzalez' "I don't recall" mantra) in every way possible, you are N A I V E and are not paying much attention. (see Amy Goodman's Democracy Now shows - www.democracynow.org ) We need to wake up folks. Our country is being hijacked!

DEWEY BEATS TRUMAN

I am sorry I must come down on this piece as little more than drivel. After first extolling the racist nature of any Obama defeat the article then says,"never mind"....why bother writing something so lacking in clarity and logic? What, I wonder, is the point here?

With a black man and a white woman vying for office one could only cringe at the coming exposure of the racist and sexist elements still prevalent in our culture. Perhaps we could not do their work for them!

I am all for Obama. He's at least young, idealisitic, and hard working. Hilary, is just Cigar Bill Part III. No thanks.

But...

Ahm-erica is the land of racism and segregation. Just go to the south and see the standard of living for the average black, hispanic, minority versus the whites...even today. Every good ol' boy and his 1st cousin wife will get out and vote if a black person runs for the presidency, and probably the same for a white woman.
There are lines already drawn, and they've exisited since the big revolutionary war. Things havent changed demographically... ie: The United States of Canada versus Jesus Land.

I don't know if race played a part in the New Hampshire vote, but I do know one thing for sure; race will play a big part in the final vote, if Obama turns out to be the final Democratic contender next November.

I base my feelings on three things. 1) I am a white woman who was married to a black man. We married in 1964, so I have had many years of experience when it comes to race and discrimination. And I know that although many things have changed and gotten better over the years, there is still a big problem, and it's still too big for a black man running for President. 2) My first husband died, and I am now married to a white man and living in the state of North Dakota. I lived in Minnesota all my life until I remarried 8 years ago and moved out here. Just judging by the way people out here feel about black people in general, or any other minorities for that matter, I highly doubt if Obama has a chance. And that's just North Dakota. It is alot worse in states like Idaho, Montana, Utah and Wyoming. And, if it's bad there, think about the southern states like Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Louisianna, Missouri.....Tennesse, Oklahoma, Nebraska. 3)It seems kind of strange to me that a newcomer like Obama has gotten all the press and media coverage that he has been getting. After all, I think we all know by now that the major media has been bought and paid for by the Bush Admin. and their supporters which would be big business and big oil. Why, then would they give so much attention to Obama? I think it's because they would like to see him win because they know they can beat him. You see what they have done to Dennis Kucinich. They have all but completely ignored him. That says alot. Of all the contenders, he is the last one they would like to see get in. After all, he was against the Iraqi war from the get-go. He is pro-union, pro-choice, he is for a national health plan. Basically, he is the one person who would do the most for the poor and the middle class. Nobody, not even the Democrats, wants to give him a chance. That is sad. I am sure that he would benefit the black people and the minorities of this country much more than Obama and all the rest.

In conclusion, Kucinich will get my vote next fall, even if I have to write him in. I would love to see a black person, a woman, or a person of any ethnic background be President. But, I will still vote for the one person I really believe will represent and do the most for EVERYONE in this country. I WILL NOT vote for someone just because of their race. Condolizza Rice and Colin Powell are two good examples of black people who sold their souls to the Bushites. It could happen again.

cmichaelg49

There is usually a little bit of debate or discussion in the House before they vote on a bill.

Do you know how I can get a hold of the American version of Hansard (ie the transcript of the discussion before the vote). I would like to know what they were thinking at the time.

If I can get a hold of it, I could use edit/find to figure out what Clinton and Edwards said about it.

Obama doesn't seem to have been in the House at the time of the vote.

cmichaelg49 January 10th, 2008 12:52 am

The Project For A New American Century- a neocon think tank stated back in the 80's they wanted Iraq but absent a Pearl Harbor-like event to get the public to support it it would not be feasible. Hence 911. There is a lot out there on 911 and our government's complicity, the Causus Belli for starting the war. Bush stated: "One of the hardest parts of my job is connecting 911 to Iraq."

Rockerbabe1 January 10th, 2008 12:27 am

Sorry lady. Hillary will continue the war as will any candidate that makes it to the general election. I won't vote for any of them unless they renounce the criminal war in Iraq and occupation of Afghanistan. That she is a female doesn't bother me at all. It's that she won't commit to ending the war and would like to increase the military and is hawkish. Ironically, if she were more like I women (traditionally less war-like) than a man I would like her more. IT'S THE WAR STUPID! No offense.

The following article strikes me as surely a good resource article for people wishing to follow more of the analyses on what happened in NH voting.

"NH Primary: Pre-Election Polls Wildly Different Than Results Announced for Clinton/Obama

Global Research, January 9, 2008
Bradblog.com

...

Other Pre-Election Numbers, For Republicans and Rest of Dems, Nearly Dead on the Money...

[UPDATED several times at end of article, and still developing with new updates...]"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7753

raytheon bechtel

democracy brought with a bomb of nuclear waste for all.

Hillary? Make a difference? Just like the difference Bill made: http://www.alternet.org/story/72336/

And the only way Clinton's foreign policy looks good is in comparison to the disaster that is Bush/Cheney.

Hillary wasn't deceived by Bush. The neocons in Bill's Clinton's State Department and Pentagon wanted to go to war against Saddam long before Cheney and Rumsfeld got their chance. Remember this moment? http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/

Change is NOT Hillary's baby.

tailcap---thanks and if you scroll up to one of the posters who links you to actual vote counts precinct by precinct, there are some very disturbing patterns. We have to nip this one in the bud---like I said, not because of any candidate per se, but because of the very heart of our electoral process. This is some serious stuff and people cannot afford to NOT pay attention any longer. So many of the explanations posted here were parroting the pundits. I was listening to public radio today and heard all the usual suspects with all their " plausible explanations" which just lull folks into a false sense of security.

starofthesea January 9th, 2008 11:11 pm

Good post. I agree. I think the Republicans may just steal another election by rigging machines. That in spite of an overwhelming majority against them. They will probably rig the exit polls too.

Okay folks---call me a conspiracy nut, but I was on another site last nite and read Bev Harris' Black Box Voting piece on Diebold machines used in almost half of the precincts in NH and how LHS has total chain of command etc. This piece written before voting had even started.

I am not supporting either Obama, or Clinton--don't frankly see much difference, but that aside, when I heard the results last night, I felt a chill----I am a election integrity advocate and have not forgotten 2004 and feel we are in grave danger of having no electoral integrity whatsoever left.

I checked out BradBlog and there are good reasons for us to be very very concerned. Isn't anyone else mystified that all of a sudden exit polling is "legit" again? How quickly we forget that the 2004 election rigging was "proved" by the disparity between exit poll numbers, but THEN we were told exit polls can't be trusted blah blah blah. Now they are to be trusted again to back up a different result. WAKE UP!!!!! We haven't got much time, unless you are all prepared to give up completely. It's time to consider that we have even less to say about what happens than we ever thought, and if we don't stop it now, we are lost.

I thought this was interesting, check out the link:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jan2008/newh-j09.shtml

"Perhaps the most striking distinction between Clinton and Obama voters concerned feelings about their family's economic futures. Those who said their families were "getting ahead" backed Obama by 48 to 31 percent. Those who said their families were "falling behind"—a much larger group—voted for Clinton by 43 to 33 percent."

Don't misconstrue my skepticism for cynicism. I met Edwards before all this and I was impressed. He's articulated a number of populist issues better than most but lets face it: Kucinich has been there longer, gone farther and done more.

He is well-meaning no doubt. Yet in terms of experience he has less than Obama in terms of real, on-the-ground politics.

Hillary's buckets of experience on the other hand is really more of a problem than a boon for me. However much I appreciate the fact that she's had to be the way she is in order to get to where she's at or that she's the way she is because of where she's been or who's she's been with -- only goes so far. Not only do I not feel the least bit sorry for her but I know there are tens of thousands of women who have suffered more, strived harder and cried at least as honorably (and a lot less publicly) than her. Perhaps you know a few.

But now that more than a few previously undecided NH women have come out and said that they voted for Hillary simply because they saw her cry is a sham and copout.

Why any of us have to be convinced or require proof that she is a human being is outrageous.

There were eye witnesses I understand. Ecstasis! Like Jesus on toast.

Something else is going on because there cannot be any doubt that Barack Obama is human.

There is no comparison.

He is too human.

I just hope we can handle it.

I hope someone didn't say this already. I don't have time to read through the whole thread, so at the risk of repeating something...

I don't buy the Bradley effect or the Diebold effect. The pre-eletion polls were accurate for all the candidates of both parties, except for Clinton. Also, Democratic turnout was up 93% over 2004 (according to Air America) and was much higher than the Republicans. All of this suggests that nearly every undecided voter went for Clinton, or at least the other candidates picked up as many undecideds as they lost to Clinton. I think many voters were disgusted at the viciousness of the attacks on Clinton. I found myself defending her too, and I'm hardly a supporter, but the attacks were illegitimate. I think her increased support was a reaction to blatant sexism in the media.

I understand that any voter in New Hampshire can vote in either the Democratic or the Republican primary. On that basis, I am wondering whether a significant number of Republican-leaning voters cast their vote for Clinton in the Democratic primary on the premise that she would be easier to beat in the general election than Obama.

Ezeflyer - I've seen that email, the one where Obama is the only candidate not holding his hand over his heart, it's circulated around my office. The people I work with are average Americans, I'd say - and they've all been carrying on about what a disgrace it is to have a candidate that's half black, half Muslim. I truly fear for Obama's life, if he gets too close to being elected. Seems it's a bigger offense to come from the "wrong" ethnic background than it is to start a war under false pretenses.

RE: - Repuglicans are circulating an email that shows Hillary, Richardson and Obama standing before a huge American flag saying the pledge of allegiance. All had their hands over their hearts, except Obama whose hands were clasped over his private parts. The email went on to say "how can we trust a man whose middle name is Hussein"?

That may backfire! Even mildly racist people would find that offensive! Remember what happened to Kim Campbell when she tried something similar with Jean Chretien:

Is this a prime minister? This pointed question brings Kim Campbell's already suffering campaign to a grinding halt, as shown in this CBC news report. Campbell's campaign team posed the question in a negative attack advertisement, featuring photographs of Liberal leader Jean Chrétien. The implication was that someone who looked like Chrétien, who has partial facial paralysis as a result of Bell's palsy, could not seriously lead the country. Almost immediately, the public responds angrily and the advertisement is pulled from the airwaves.

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-2084-12983/politics_economy/kim_campbell/clip9

Who started that strange tradition of putting the hand over the heart? There must be some history behind it.

RE: - Obama's candidacy is not a referendum on African American issues and it isn't clear what the social desirability of choosing him over Clinton would be.

On January 21, we will find out what they all think about "African American issues" - by which would be NAFTA, Health Care, jobs, housing, education, the illegal wars etc ...

I bet New Orleans will come up because it represented a total disregard for human life. If the moderator doesn't bring it up, the candidates will.

RE: - Maybe in both cases the voters voted for who they perceived to be the best candidate.

Maybe some people didn't vote for Clinton because they are female or didn't vote for Obama because of his father - but I am sure they can justify not voting for either of these two without appearing like a racist if they so wished. I don't see how not wanting to appear racist or misogynist would cause a person to misrepresent themselves on a poll.

1) The poll may have been unrepresentative of the population it was taken from for reasons that someone needs to figure out.

2) There may have been a large group of undecided which may have swung the vote (polls tend to ignore the undecided)

3) Obama supporters were influenced by the polls in that, thinking that he was a shoe in, they figured they did not need to show up.

4) The polls may have been right and the voting fixed.

If you can rule out the first three, then the third possibility is more likely.

You know in Canada, you are not allowed to have polls published right before voting. The Candidate is also not allowed to stand beside a polling station and shake hands with those about to cast their vote. And candidate signs have to be a certain distance from polling stations. All these things are considered an interference with the democratic process.

RE: - The question for both Obama and Richardson could be the race card. Richardson, who's mother was Mexican, appears to be having issues with getting the media and the press to talk about him at all.

I didn't know that. Richardson is supposed to drop out tomorrow. Can Richardson speak spanish - if he can, he should have been promoting it. If one wishes to negotiate NAFTA, that would help. Also, since spanish is related to french (both romance languages) he could probably gain a passing understanding of french as well.

Just don't make him Ambassador to Canada if the Dems win - just looked him up and his pro gun stance won't earn him many friends - and he doesn't deserve to be thought of the way we think of David Wilkins or Paul Cellucci.

RE: - many blacks are denied the vote due to felony conviction.

And sometimes you serve less time if you plead guilty than if you try to fight it with a court appointed lawyer. If you have money, you can get bail and a conviction overturned.

In Canada, even inmates can vote. I remember a news report of the Marijuana party going to some jail or other to hand out their pamphlets.

RE: - to be a Muslim Communist is a contradictory situation since Communists are atheists - I suppose the people who believe Obama is a Muslim Communist also believe there are WMD in Iraq.

Not officially (though it seems that some of the presumably communitst leaders did believe in god). To be bicultured or tri-cultured means that you combine them in your own way. The true communists are the Hutterites, Mennonites and Amish. I can see it now - red alert the Amish are coming and they have WMD hidden in their barns!

One of these days I am going to Gung Haggis Fat Choy which is a combination Robbie Burns Chinese New Years Celebration. Imagine haggis filled spring rolls in sweet and sour sauce. Someone has - and, presumably, it is quite tasty.

RE: - l am sure Mr. Obama is mature enough not to cry racism everytime things don't go his way.

One has to be careful as a candidate playing that hand (even when it is true) since it can come out sounding more like sour grapes. Obama is best to stick to his "I never dreamed that I could run for president" schick which covertly blames racism if he fails because it overtly credits an enlightened society devoid of racism for his success. His message is well-crafted.

Exit polls are the polls that more closely define ballot results. Not opinion or popularity polls. Duh.

and more than likely our toxic planet will be a glow

Obama and Clinton HAVE ALREADY SOLD YOU OUT!!
Give your votes and support to someone who is really fighting for you, JOHN EDWARDS! John can win with your support. Send him some love for having the courage to speak the truth, and for forcing Obama and Clinton to start talking about the issues that matter to working people.
EDWARDS '08

The title of this article asks a stupid question. You could just as well say the 35 year olds with brown eyes who stayed home and didn't vote cost Obama the primary.

Here's the deal, and this reporter ought to know it. Every voter has the right to be racist or anything else when they go to the polls. It's the candidate's job to win the majority of the votes, not in some ideal fantasy situation but in the real world. Perhaps if we had a presidential election and ONLY black people were allowed to vote, he would win. Personally I like him, but let's be intelligent and informed about how elections work.

A better question would be, why would anybody vote for Hilary when Obama and Edwards are out there?

And don't fall for Hillary's 'mandate' nonsense. I'm currently paying for mandated health insurance I can't afford to attend college. $1,500 a year on top of $9,000 a year. The issue is NOT MANDATES. ITS AFFORDABILITY.

Oh, and guess who I have to buy loans from. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18040824/

You think this doesn't happen with mandated health insurance?

As Obama says, "Cost is the number one reason that 47 million Americans do not have health insurance and thousands more are edging toward bankruptcy every day…What I have said repeatedly is that the reason people don't have health insurance is not because they don't want it, it's because they can't afford it." He has never ruled out a mandate, he has said we have to take on the health insurance corporations and address the underlying costs of healthcare first, before we can legislate an affordable mandate for ALL AMERICANS.

What good is an unaffordable health care mandate? What are we going to do, throw everyone in prison who doesn't have health insurance when they're caught speeding?

The Massachusetts Plan

"But the reluctance of so many to enroll, along with the possible exemption of 60,000 residents who cannot afford premiums, has raised questions about whether even a mandate can guarantee truly universal coverage.

Additional concerns have been generated by projections that the state's insurers plan to raise rates 10 percent to 12 percent next year, twice this year's national average. That would undercut the plan's secondary goal of slowing the increase in health costs."We're going to be very aggressive in trying to get those numbers down to single digits," said Jon M. Kingsdale, executive director of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, the agency that markets the subsidized insurance policies. "If we continue with double-digit inflation, I don't think health reform is sustainable."…

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois sees it a different way. He argues there is danger in mandating coverage before it is clear it can be affordable for those at the margins. While Mr. Obama does not rule out a mandate down the road, his emphasis is on reducing costs and providing generous government subsidies to those who need them. He would mandate coverage for children. " [Because children don't have a choice, they're not adults.]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/us/politics/25mass.html

Obama is the real deal. Clinton will sell you out.

"Judge Him By His Laws"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html

"Obama Forged Political Mettle In Illinois Capitol"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802262_pf.html

"In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd" (Graphic of Illinois Legislation)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.htm

FOREXTRADER-- it is more complicated than just placing blame on a state of people... think about our fixed elections in the past. The Deibold machines have got to go, or we will have another war mongering president elected by rigged machines. Its like we have been tricked into believeing in this pseudo democracy and that our vote actually counts. I agree with yormsane on this one. And keep in mind folks...back when Jesse Jackson ran for president NH neighbor Vermont (another one of the whitest states in the union) elected him president. Thats right Brother Jackson won in good ol' white Vermont. This country is definately racist but there is more foul play at hand. Racism is an easy thing to blame Obama's loss on in a state like New England. Now the question is WHAT DO WE DO TO DEFEAT THIS ADMINISTRATION AND THIS CROOKED SYSTEM OF PRESIDENTAL ELECTIONS?

Simple math demonstrates that the N.H. democratic primary result is not an example of the "Bradley Effect". Pollster.com tracks national polls and creates standard estimates based on the results of many different poles. Their standard estimates leading up to the vote were 36.7% for Obama, 30.4% for Clinton, 18.4% for Edwards, 5.6% for Richardson, 2.5% for Biden, and apparently 6.4% undecided or voting for minor candidates. The actual results were 37% for Obama (almost exactly correct), 40% for Clinton, 17% for Edwards, 5% for Richardson, and 1% for Kucinich.

Now do the math. The only candidates that actually lost ground on Clinton were white males (Edwards and Biden). She obviously also gained some support from people who were undecided. More than likely, the massive media attention focused on her heart felt explanation for why she is running and her debate performance helped her capture undecided voters, and also take votes away from other candidates in the race. There is really no evidence of a "Bradley Effect" since the only candidates that actually lost votes to Clinton were white.

l am sure Mr. Obama is mature enough not to cry racism everytime things don't go his way. Otherwise it's back to the Bushism " Your either with us or your against us" that is now causing so many problems.

The antidote to racist minorities is direct democracy.

It is REALLY annoying to see this article play the Race Card. In a state with 94% of voters being white - Obama won 9 delegates and Hillary won 9 delegates. The press called it a victory for Hillary, but she won by a margin of 5%. What counts is NOT the popular vote - but how many delegates the candidates garners. We saw that from Bush/Gore in 2000 and Bush/Kerry in 2008. Gore and Kerry won the popular vote (just as Hillary did in New Hampshire) but they lost the electoral college and the White House went to Bush.

Hillary won because of the idiotic blathering of the media about Hillary showing emotion. I watched the clip multiple times and she never shed a tear - her voice slightly wavered for a moment - but she never broke down, nor did she cry. So what is the big deal?

Blaming white racist voters in Iowa is preposterous since the article ignores that in a 94% white electorate - BOTH Hillary and Obama did equally well - REMEMBER IT IS THE MEDIA WHO DECLARED IT A VICTORY FOR HILLARY.

Remember about three months ago when Maureen Dowd slammed Hillary for "dressing too sexy" when she wore a matronly V neck sweater/blouse? First, Hillary was too cold and not emotional enough - then the media went into a feeding frenzy when she showed a glimmer of emotion. No matter what a woman or ethnic minority does when running for office, the media will create non-issues as a problem.

The election was decided by the media about six months ago when 99% of the pundits kept insisting it was already decided Rudy Guiliani and Hillary Clinton were the front runners and it was a done deal they would be their party nominees. So far, the media has blown it completely and their polls mean nothing.

It hasn't been from the voters that America is not ready for a black or a woman - it was from the media. Maureen Dowd has been Hillary Clintons biggest critic - it was Hillary Dowd who did a hatchet job on Al Gore, then four years later apologized for bashing him for frivolous reasons. Maureen Dowd says she is a liberal, but she should go to work for Fox News. I haven't seen her really give any positive reviews of any liberal, left, progressive politicians. She is no feminist in my opinion, but seems highly prejudiced and holds women politicians to a much higher standard than male politicians.

The only way we can have a free election is if every American turns off their TV and stops watching corporate media. I don't watch TV news, nor do I subscribe to a newspaper - I get all my news from Democracy Now, Amy Goodman, the online alternative media.

Clearly the media doesn't have a friggin' clue about how voters feel, Rudy Guiliani was the darling of the pundits as the Republic front runner, now he is discredited with his campaign destroyed when the tawrdry news broke about his using NY taxpayers money for adulterous illicit weekend trysts with his mistress.

Nobody really knows how this election will turn out and the media is America's worst enemy by disseminating unsubstantiated drivel to voters. If we as a nation, are dumb enough to fall for media "spin" then we've got the government we deserve.

There are posts online accusing Obama of being a Muslim Communist - which was generated by Fox News smear - to be a Muslim Communist is a contradictory situation since Communists are atheists - I suppose the people who believe Obama is a Muslim Communist also believe there are WMD in Iraq. The ignorance of Americans never ceases to amaze me - allowing our decisions at elections to be swayed by the media is dumber than a sack of hammers.

Obama is not a "real" millionaire- he has Barely 1 million compared to Hillary 60 million and all other top candidates have more than 10 million except Obama and Romney has over 200.

obama wrote two bestselling books and is Senator and both he and his wife are Harvard Law grads who could make a lot more if he was just interested in greed.

Get facts- if you do not know why and how Obama wants change to happen- it is YOUR responsibility to learn more about him on his website;

People are cyncial and lazy and are we even deserving to get Obama as our leader? I bet we just screw it up and another Republican gets into office because Hillary gets out the hateful people who love to hate her and Hillary does not attract the independents.

We as a nation have an ooportunity- barack is being hailed in Europe as the fencemender and we can reject him and be envious of him and not learn about him and so forth.

It was Diebold.

Diebold.

hunger

america is finished.

Let's see. The voters are tired of the partisan, militaristic status quo, so a plurality of New Hampshire Democrats vote for a candidate who is at least as hawkish and divisive as George W. Bush--a fortiori, at the same point in her career, far more. I'm sure her new personality du jour, cooked up from the menu proposed by consultants, has helped. No one cares that she hasn't shed a tear for the 4000 Americans and million Iraqis who have died in a war, founded on a patently fraudulent casus belli, that she has always gleefully supported; it's enough that she choked up about the difficulties of campaigning, riding on her husband's frayed and semen-stained coattails while portaying herself as a feminist, a strong and self-sufficient women while Bill talks as if he were running for reelection. At least she seems to have discovered the first person plural.

I don't know who caused this, but Obama does not respect international law (he would unilaterally take military action in Pakistan if he had "actionable" intelligence. NOt that Hillary is better, but this is all hopeless...

Loretta Rosa - well said! I sometimes fantasize about being at a KKK meeting and educating "those people" (hmmmm) about mitochondrial DNA.

Saginaw Bill and others are probably right about women's contrarian vote, in part because of Edwards' pouncing on Hillary's weakness. He's not is not exactly a "man's man" either. A lot of Hillary's vote may have come from Edwards as a result and not switchers from Obama.

Disengenuous or not, Hillary's tears may also have reached an empathy deeper than gender sympathy. Who hasn't felt tears about America losing its soul in monstrous acts, disembowled children, torture, false imprisonment, etc. All of us feel that deep sorrow. We've had enough false machismo and cowboy swagger.

And I'm not really a Hillary fan, but a smart woman in the white house would be refreshing. Kucinich is my first choice, but I'm not sure he'll make it to our primary.

You ever look at a really slick, attractive guy and think, "Wow, what a thing he's got going on over there! Too bad, he's got to be a jerk"? Just sayin'...maybe the effect wore off.

Or perhaps it was the Harvard educated millionaire lawyer shouting about "change" that rang a little disingenuous.

Whatever it is, to jump up and shout racism is a bit annoying.

Only one thing I have to tell a racist American.
CHECK OUT YOUR DNA

peace

Barack Obama 2008

Quasar, wpblake, Nader2000 and friends -

In my opinion, three things happened between Iowa and New Hampshire that best explain the differing results, and it doesn't have to do with Diebold hanky panky.

First, Obama beat Hillary Clinton in Iowa among female voters - white female voters, obviously, since there were so few African American females there to caucus. This was a big surprise, and undoubtedly a profound disappointment for the Clinton camp. Polls reflect that in New Hampshire however, Clinton's expected edge over Obama among female voters was back at the double digit level previously anticipated.

What happened in such a short, short span of time?

I think over the weekend a large number of women voters took one look at the scenario of Hillary losing Iowa, then New Hampshire, then certainly South Carolina, and thus falling flat on her face as a viable candidate according to the national pundit Know-It-Alls (plummeting in flames while Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, and Faux News danced in glee at the downfall of the Clinton dynasty) and many (feminist and nonfeminist alike) said "no way will I let that happen to her, after all that she's done, and all that she's been through."

Hillary's brief, off message, emotional sound bite was only a tiny bit of it. The big part was that many women simply were not going to sit by and watch a fully qualified female Presidential candidate who'd paid her dues get humiliated by the three-strikes-and-you're-out rule our mainstream media uses to narrow the field.

Second, the polls also show Obama didn't get nearly as much of the independent vote in New Hampshire that he got in Iowa. Why?

Because New Hampshire had an open primary. Many independent voters opted to vote on the Republican ticket for John McCain, in order to reject Romney and Huckabee as the potential GOP nominee. Those "change" voters would have largely gone for Obama, had they voted in the Democratic race like they did in Iowa. I mean after all, New Hampshire historically is a conservative, Republican-leaning state.

Third, the 24/7 media echo chamber's call of the partisan horse race every electoral season does have its own, partially unintended, effects upon voter behavior.

If Obama had won Iowa and New Hampshire, and then won South Carolina in a squeaker over Edwards, surely his slam dunk candidacy would be hailed (even by many of the nonreligious among us) as some preordained, beneficent blessing bestowed from above, destined to heal up all of America's historic wounds, restoring belief in the City on the Hill while the lions lie down with the lambs, etc.

But it's way too soon, and in fact too risky, to let such an unknown quantity as Barack Obama lock up a major political party's Presidential nomination so quickly. The horse race must go on, for at least several more laps, in order to insure that if he does indeed become the candidate, like the others drifting towards the back of the pack. The candidate ultimately must be beholden to more people, and bigger people, in more and bigger states, than just the Daly machine of Cook county and those big fish in the small ponds of DesMoines and Manchester.

Thus, the good people of New Hampshire have played out their designated role well in the scripting of the national melodrama that is yet to come.

Stay tuned for more coverage, after this commercial break.

Bill from Saginaw

Holy Cod Fish!

And I thought I was guilty of circular reasoning!

Exactly what issue did Obama raise to convince me to vote for him? He ran as a Rock Star. My generation is not into Rock. What did Obama have to say about Nafta? What did he say about Outsourcing our industrial base? He did support the Iraq war and increasing our armed forces by 100,000 men. Does that mean he is in favor of a draft for his
Rock Star supporters? He seems to be in favor of the same things as Hillary, so why reward him with my vote?
Let the Me-too candidates beware, were fed up..

While racism is not to be discounted, neither is sexism. But let's not crazy here. We are talking about an official 2% difference in who the media is calling a winner and a loser. Why are people spending so much time discussing a non-issue while ignoring the bigger problem--like explaining how the polls were that far off from the reported election results? It is statistically very improbable that the polls would have been so different from the "results." Our attention should be in determining whether the voting machines could have been tampered with. Maybe they were set to count almost every Kuchinich vote as Clinton votes?
Why is it that folks are so willing to suspend belief--yet again--when voting results are so different from the polls? Have we learned nothing yet about how elections are tampered with?
We should not assume that only the Republicans have learned to tamper with voting machines. Nor should we assume that the Republians would not prefer to face their old pal Clinton in the general election. Clinton will be easy pickings for them.
Folks, we are better off having as many candidates stay in the race for as long as possible--maybe even causing it to be decided at the convention. It will keep progressive issues in the public space for a much longer time.

Good grief.

whats wrong with paper ballots? up here in backward canuckistan we use paper ballots that are marked with an X beside the name of the candidate you vote for.

the ballots are counted immediately following the close of the poll at the polling station by the officials. Each candidate is allowed to have scrutineers present to watch the counting of each and every ballot.

we manage to count millons of ballots in an hour or so by hand.

All you nay-sayers, who want proof of electronic fraud, can look at the numbers, here:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5530

The question for both Obama and Richardson could be the race card. Richardson, who's mother was Mexican, appears to be having issues with getting the media and the press to talk about him at all. I think the more likely issue is that the Republicans DO want the candidate to win who they can beat the most easily (Clinton). If you follow that conspiracy theory to it's conclusion, you can see why a highly qualified candidate like Richardson is getting no air time or press space. Most of the media and newspapers are owned by Republicans. They certainly don't want the American public to realize that there is a well-respected Democratic candidate who many Republicans would vote for in the race. If you want to really do something to make sure we get a Democrat in the White House, then send Richardson some money, vote for him and write letters to the papers to try to get him some name recognition. You can check out his great credentials at www.richardsonforpresident.com
I, for one, refuse to let the press choose my candidate for me.

I think it just shows how close this contest is. Just because a bunch of pundits think they know what the results will be doesn't make it so.

And thank heaven for that. Otherwise, why even vote if the pundits decide the outcome?

Republicans want Hillary to win the democratic presidential nomination as they know she stands as good a chance as a snowball in hell to beat any Republican.

Countr-wide, Hillary represents a conondrum for the democratic party as half the electors dislike her and the other half tolerate her.

If Hillary wins the nomination, that certainly spells a definite no-win situation for the democratic party - her negatives are simply tooooo high.

After the Iowa caucus was anyone asking: "Did mysoginism or Hillary hating cause Senator Clinton to lose the Iowa Caucus or maybe it was guilt for slavery and Jim Crow" Come on now. Maybe in both cases the voters voted for who they perceived to be the best candidate.

I am sure that there were racist voters in N.H. who voted for someone other than Obama because of race JUST AS I AM SURE THAT since our nation's inception, those in power and voters (as we became eligible to vote) voted against women just because they were women. (Parenthetical inserts, below, are mine.)

"Until the philosophy which holds one race (or gender) superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned; that until there are no longer first class and second class citizens of any nation; that until the colour of a (wo)man's skin is of no more significance than the colour of (her)his eyes; that until the basic human rights are equally guaranteed to all, without regard to race (or gender); that until that day, the dream of lasting peace and world citizenship and the rule of international morality will remain but fleeting illusions, to be pursued but never attained."
— Haile Selassie

Watching the CNN results come in while sitting in the gym, I noticed a few things. From 7:00 PM to 8:00 PM, the Kucinich and Richardson numbers stopped growing and the Edwards numbers grew just at a steady 17% of the total. All the Democratic votes added to about 60,000 while the Republican votes were about half of that. NH is a very conservative state, and to have 2/3 of the votes going into the Dem selection in itself seemed to say something. The Republicans don't have to be organized and coordinated to be a shrewd group. If I were a Repub and trying to throw a monkey wrench into the mix, I would have been voting for Clinton once I knew the McCain was safe. The NH voters (and North Eastern voters for that matter) are a lot better informed and a lot smarter than the average Joe or Jill out there in the US voting population. If I were a conservative in NH I would also be registered as an Independent and thus have a potential spoiler influence in primaries as well. I believe, and I bet that most in NH believe, that McCain is probably the most electable Repub out there (even if he does come across as a bit crazy) and that his best chances are against Clinton. I believe that among all the Dems still in the running, Clinton will be the most likely one for McCain to beat. That was what the numbers were telling me.

Also, assuming the psychological and behavioral profile I just inferred, I can imagine a good number of the Granite State folks taking pleasure in lying to the pollsters both going into and coming out of the primary.

Machiavelli rules!

Racism, maybe. Highjinks possibly...., If the exit polls don't match the results in a big way, then check how the votes are counted.
According to the Brad Blog, "the New Hampshire votes are counted largely on Diebold optical-scan voting systems, wholly controlled and programmed by a 'very very bad company' named LHS Associates.

Those Diebold op-scan machines are the exact same ones that were hacked in the HBO documentary, Hacking Democracy. Brad Blog has a report which also includes a video of that hack, and footage of the guy who runs LHS Associates.

I strongly suggest everyone go to the Brad Blog for the most in depth and well documented coverage of election integrity issues.

No, Obama wasn't defeated by racism. He was defeated by Republicans - with a lot of help from Diebold. They doctored the results to make sure their preferred candidate (Hillary Clinton) was declared the winner, just like they did with Howard Dean and John Kerry in the 2004 Iowa caucuses.
Barack Obama got the most votes yesterday, and I suspect that Ron Paul also got thousands more votes than the final totals that were declared.

I think Worrisome is spot on for 3 reasons. The woman who wrote the book "Black Box Voting" warned on INN today that:

NH used the very same type of Diebold machines that were hacked in Florida in 2000.

All the exit polls were mysteriously wrong (sound familiar)?

Never underestimate the Clinton machine! They are as dirty, facist and power hungry as the Bush crime cabal and they will win at all costs. Oh and the sudden crying? Priceless and STAGED, please...

As someone familiar with the in workings of surveys, I think there is a need to clarify what the "Bradley effect" actually represents. It does not necessarily represent racism as the author of this article has stated. What it actually represents is social desirability bias, where people give answers to surveys that they think are the most socially desirable or answers that they believe the interviewer would find most socially desirable. It is not so much a desire to disguise racism as a desire to not appear racist.

In this particular case, however, I doubt that there is any "Bradley effect". Obama's candidacy is not a referendum on African American issues and it isn't clear what the social desirability of choosing him over Clinton would be. There were large numbers of undecided voters prior to the vote and at the end of the day, Obama received the same percentage of the votes as the polls said he would receive. The surprise was Clinton, who clearly received increased support from people who either changed their minds or who were previously undecided.

Fraud is also extremely unlikely since the exit polls match the results. It is discouraging, however, that the media is increasingly shying away from reporting the exit poll results of elections, which are used world wide to detect election fraud.

The senile John McCain sang "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran!" Another war-loving Republican imbecile for president coming up.

Clinton and Obama are war-loving corporate whores, too.

The only decent one is John Edwards. I will write his name in on the ballot.

EDWARDS 2008

Repuglicans are circulating an email that shows Hillary, Richardson and Obama standing before a huge American flag saying the pledge of allegiance. All had their hands over their hearts, except Obama whose hands were clasped over his private parts. The email went on to say "how can we trust a man whose middle name is Hussein"?

Things can change between when the polls were taken and when the vote was taken. The thing is that when it changes this much it should be looked into.

People do not admit to things that they consider to be unpopular (ie the whole race theory), but saying that you are voting for someone other than Obama is not the same as saying that you are in favour of slavery!

I don't know why they keep using those machines!

I am sure that you all have teenagers who can create a voting program where every third vote cast for anyone goes to Bush instead.

If Hillary got 342
Obama 450
and Edwards 474

Then the machine would tell us

Hillary 228
Obama 300
Edwards 316
Bush 422

This is one of the more preposterous ideas i've heard in a while. Does anybody really believe that a voter would be afraid to admit to supporting Clinton for fear of being seen as racist? You could just as easily suggest that they would be afraid to admit to supporting Obama for fear of being seen as sexist. That is just silly.

Wow the New Hampshire voters showed the world! The New Hampshire Voter had this message: we are independent voters, and just to prove that we will vote for status quo candidates like Hillary and McCain who keep us in the war forever and a day, and represent the plutocrats.

Wow New Hamspshire you sure told them.

This is all B.S. The answer is rigged elections. NH uses a mix of both hand-counted paper ballots and Diebold touch screens. The Diebold touch screens gave a 5-7% advantage to Hillary over Obama compared to the paper ballots.

Check this out:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/010908_not_counted.htm

Ballot fraud is unlikely in this case since New Hampshire uses paper ballots which are hand counted or optically scanned; in either case there is a voter-verified paper record which could be used to detect and tends to deter any rigging of the count.

Quasar, I hope you're not right, but I fear that you are onto something. It scares me. Both Bill and Hillary came unglued when Obama won Iowa. A president that stomps her foot, shouts, and cries when things aren't going her way? How could that behaviour have possibly won her New Hampshire?

From my experience as a Dem caucus goer in Iowa, I can tell you that the Hillary fans are typically the blue haired old ladies who just may have a little racism up their sleeve. What we learned coming out of New Hampshire is that we must get the young voters out all over the country. Most of them tend to be color blind and can smell a rat - which is more than can be said for the majority of the blue haired lady crowd.

Has this writer never heard of ballot fraud??? Racism is not the issue, it is mainly making sure that candidates who win are the ones that benefit the establishment (read corporate class.) The Democrat who wins will be the one that the fixers believe will most benefit them or hurt them the least.

In the Bradley-Deukmejian election, Californians went to bed having heard that Bradley won. The next morning, it was announced that Deukmejian won because of absentee ballots that had just been counted. Complete BS! The absentee ballots come in days in advance, and they are the ones announced at the BEGINNING of the count at 8 pm, long before any ballot boxes could have been tallied at the precincts and sent to the Registrar-Recorder which come in about 10 pm. That was a stolen election before anyone in California wanted to admit that there was any such thing as ballot fraud.

I was a candidate in Los Angeles County in 1992, and learned a great deal about how it is done. After now Rep. Diane Watson lost her race for County Supervisor in 1992, several universities examined the vote tallies in both the primary and the runoff in November, and they all found that it was a statistical impossibility in both elections that the ballots reported were legitimate. This was the time when Karen Saranita exposed the registration fraud that occurs when there is no ID required to register: Dogs and cats were registered, and in the Watson-Burke race there were massive numbers of duplicate registration voted by absentee ballot (by operatives not the individuals.) Then State Sen. Watson went on to convene a special committee of the CA State Senate to investigate the issue. Her committee, Voting Practices and Procedures (Karen Saranita as chief staffer,) had 3 or 4 statewide hearings in which numerous people, both county registrars and individuals, gave damning testimony about the "irregularities." Some of the problems were also at the polls themselves. And, though CA law recommends that counting software be escrowed with a neutral third party, the legislature has never funded it, thus the counting software of each county before and after the no-printout machines is never examined to make sure that it is not corrupted by the fixers.

This was quite a few years before the no-printout voter machines arrived on the scene. There are still the same registration "irregularities" that the CA League of Women Voters recognized in 1994 in 2007. While the law has changed so that county voting officials must clean up their lists and transmit them to their state's Secretary of State, they are failing to do so.

The Institute for Fair Elections complained in early 2006 to the US Justice Dept. that the State of California has not complied with assuring a legitimate statewide voting list within 90 days prior to the election, but Bush's AG cannot be bothered to enforce the new HAVA law.

We will have election fraud in 2008, primaries and the general election, because nothing much has been done to clean it up, despite all credit to the new Secretary of State of California and other states who have decertified most of the proprietary voting machines.

Until all Americans who care who gets elected get serious about cleaning up our elections, who we get is who the fixers want us to get. Period.

Not just women, but white women. And not just any woman, but Bill Clinton's wife. More than a fairy tale, Obama is Bill's worst nightmare. It's the fairy tale made real.

Here we have an almost unbelievably eloquent man who is intelligent, graceful, handsome, young, passionate and compassionate, funny, a natural leader and black. But more than just black.

And then we have Hillary. Yes, the women came out for her in New Hampshire. The white women. They came out to rescue her and themselves from that irresistable black man.

Before the NH primary, Bill sounded more than desperate. He sounded threatened. For his wife and his legacy.

Just wait: the closer Obama gets to the nomination and then the inauguration, the more we will see America's true colors. Not red and blue but black and white.

I'm choking up, here. Maybe I'm crying. You'll need a newscaster to interpret which it is. So many astute posters not falling for the nonsense being fed.

Yes, we're being taught to disregard polls (unless it's in the Ukraine, or course)

And why would Obama be ahead in the polls and then lose? Who does the counting. Here's a link to hand counted vs Diebold counted votes.
http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS

Racism is woven into the fabric of American culture. Diversity of ethnicity has not yet yielded diversity of thought in this country. To one degree or another we are all racists, it just depends on the moment of interaction.

Racism: The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

So, a white kid in the suburbs that dotes on a Hip Hop groups and singers, wears the clothes, walks and talks like a rapper is a racist, to a degree... You model who you favor and discard what you dislike, fear or do not understand.

For Obama he is either too black or too white. I agree with the article in that when it comes right down to it there are few people that would not side with their 'own' kind. To bad, but you know we are all racists for even considering race in our daily lives.

I give no weight to any poll because people rarely tell you how they truly feel, they just answer with polite political correctness.

And if i ever get to meet Hillary Clinton, then I'm going to ask "just what the hell was wrong with the very 1st draft of your health care plan?!!"

LOL - If people voted out of pity according to the Crying Game theorists, then they should have voted for Kucinich- pity and predjudice galore!

Maybe if people actually knew what Obama really stands for he'd do better. While I don't doubt that racism and sexism play a role in voter's minds, one isn't necessarily a racist if one finds Obama to be all image and oratory. Personally, I think he would be slightly better than Clinton but not much different. Of the three pre-chosen "front runners" Edwards is by far the best but just as one cannot trust our crooked electoral system, I doubt that we can put much veracity in the outcome of these overhyped primaries.

Every time Obama get beat in the election process, the Boys' Club cries foul. They just can't stand having a girl beat them at anything - even when she is 10 times better. Hilliary didn't cry-she was touched that someone showed concern for her on a personel level [not to mention, probably physically exhausted at all the non-stop campaigning]. We all make mistakes; Hilliary's mistake was believing that Dubba, the current President of the United States, would not lie about something so important as going to war. She, like so many others was deceived, lied to and mislead - get over it! I and many others didn't vote for Dubba and I doubt that the Clintons did either, but Dubba is what we got, what we have and what we have to live with until January 2009. It would be nice if the "progressives" who read this site would stop bashing the one person who could make a real difference in their lives. GO HILLIARY GIRL, GO!

Chunga's Revenge: yeah, you said what I meant in a much more straightforward way. keep posting.

And while I'm at it, I watch Clinton's 'outburst' footage, and -shocker- the media is Full Of Shit!! She wasn't crying, mabye a bit choked up. But remember she was told to use a lower register in her voice to make her sound appealing, plus she was exhausted, and talking about exhausting and emotion. How would you sound? When I first heard this story, I thought she must have acted like widow at an italian funeral.

This is more of pundits trying to clarify their own bullshit (see Chunga's Revenge post)

Who would ever have believed that in the year 2008, bigotry and misogyny would defame an election.

So on to pundit-ing!

Race and Gender, sure
but let's not forget:
Polls are a crock!
Who spent money and on what?
Who are the actual people who worked on the process?
Were they party insiders? Newbies? What were their priorities?

Clinton won by what, 7000 votes, and in the end she and Obama got the same number of delegates....

It's a lot of work, but read the same information from as many different sources you can and then make up your own damn mind!

Its easy to speculate from all the polls, and unfortunately it creates an expectation.
I feared the polls showing Obama in the lead would do him harm. I think it may have
given people the impression that since he was so sure to win, they could vote for
someone else, like McCain, who the media was garnering sympathy for by saying
things like "it's do or die for McCain" and then you see the guy's picture and
how old he is and you think, "gee they're serious!"

I think you have to take your hat off to Clinton for staying with it 'til the end.
Though in the long haul, if Clinton's husband is going to have to step up and
win her every primary, it is NOT going to bode well for her.

As for race being an issue, I don't really think so. It was still very, very close.
And you have to remember a few weeks ago Obama was predicted ten points
behind.

I'm also motivated by his speech Tuesday night. You could tell the loss affected
him but it didn't affect his poise. The mark of a true leader.

Maybe I should be a pundit, like Haroon Siddique. Obviously, when a woman or a black upset the MSM's pudits and polls then it is a victory or defeat for racisim or sexism. Yes in America we like simple emotional solutions. Forget rational thought... give me fear and anger!!

Yes, gender and race still play a major factor in voting, especially when we focus on the candidates and not the issues. When we focus on character and celebrity/status like the Establishment wants, then we discredit what the founding fathers gave to us. Voting becomes a popularity contest, rather than a procedure to produce democratic management of govermental issues. And popularity contests always involve personal predjudices.

I think it was Hillary's tears (which I believe were real, not crocodile). I had a gut reaction when I saw her get choked up and then saw how the media and pundits pounced on it (and how John Edwards said you need to be tough to be president). As a woman, it made me feel sympathy for Hillary (and I am not a Hillary fan). It showed that she is a human being, not a monster. I spoke to numerous people about her tears, and they all felt that it humanized her and helped her tremendously. So, female voters in N.H. who might have been torn between Hillary and Barack may have felt a desire to support the woman who was under attack as too "weak" to be President. (Note that the media and pundits didn't jump all over Mitt Romney when he choked up, more than once, on the campaign trail.) There is a double standard here.

Wow - What a waste of bandwidth this article is. Obummer takes first place in Iowa and second place in NH and somehow that makes him a looser? Oh wait, I get it, the pollsters are perfect, so if they were wrong we must start fabricating non existent issues of race. Maybe Billary just did a better job of getting here supporters mobilized in the last few days of the campaign there, na.

As a program leader of several years for a youth camp that focused on race, gender and religious issues in order to get at building a more inclusive community, I've learned that most (young people at least) can identify racial disscrimination in themselves and others but have a much harder time identifying gender discrimination. In fact, most people seemed more comfortable talking about homosexuality or white-guilt then gender issues, and gender discrimination was the most stongly defended among all discrimination... and these were the more "enlightened" kids.

This is a stupid proposition. Voters responding to pollsters could just as easily have said they were voting for some other candidate as say they were voting for Obama and lying about it. Would a racist really want to go on record or tell anybody they were voting for a Black? I think not.

For the thesis of this article to be correct, the "racist" would also have to have the intention of leading pollsters in one direction so that the polls would be wrong, and they would have had to get together to agree to lie to pollsters

Come on. Can't we get intelligent and common sense minded reports on Common Dreams. I am beginning to think that Common Dreams has lost it sense of fair reporting.

The media may finally have to get used to the American people doing what they think instead of what the media, and so-called experts tell them to think.

Perhaps too many years of listening to media garbage and lies has finally come home to roost. So lets see the experts start kissing butts to the Democrats so they can be in good graces with the in group.

So the debate on CNN on Jan 21 is in honour of Martin Luther King?

Newsworld's analysis agrees with Nader2000 that it was gender rather than race this time around. They are very very curious as to why the poll and voting results were so dissimilar - and I hope that CNN is too - and Jimmy Carter.

At the very least, I think Rick Mercer will look into it further. Yes, Canadians find sick things like this amusing.

BTW - you know who is running Giuliani's campaign - Paul Cellucci! SallyUUKent, that is enough to make my spine shiver.