South Carolina Primary Analysis

South Carolina Democratic Primary (99% reporting)

Obama - 295,091 (55%)
Clinton - 141,128 (27%)
Edwards - 93,552 (18%)
Kucinich - 551 (0%)


The winner from Saturday is Barack Obama and the losers are Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and John McCain. Here is the breakdown:


Barack Obama: This win in South Carolina trancended race and gender. According to the CNN exit polling breakdown, the race breakdown shows that while Obama won "the black vote", he also won soundly the "Non-black vote" among those between the ages of 18-29 years of age. But Non-Black vote between the ages of 30-59 was not "won" by Senator Hillary Clinton, but by John Edwards! Also, among those who believed Obama was the "most qualified" to be President, he received 96 percent of their votes. Among those who believe Clinton is the "most qualified", 72 percent voted for her and 20 percent voted for Obama. Obama has been doing his best to get away from race and gender. Winning South Carolina was essential to give him momentum entering the Super Tuesday primaries. He has a great shot at doing well on Super Tuesday and could come out with a slight edge in delagates. This race for the nomination is far from over and Obama has a good shot at being the nominee.

Hillary Clinton: This loss may have been expected, but losing by 28 percent certainly was not part of the expectations. Also, the demographic she "won" in South Carolina was the 65 years of age or over column (where she only beat Obama by 8 percent) speaks to the fact that among some democratic voters, her and her husband's message is old and uninteresting. She lost to Edwards and Obama among those who were "Non-Black" and under the age of 65. She has entered the same boat as McCain on the Republican side: having a limited demographic to draw from and needing to convince the rest you should be their choice. Losing by 153,000 plus votes is a damaging blow to the Clinton campaign entering Super Tuesday. She needs to do much better than Obama on Super Tuesday to show she is "nationally" electable. If Obama does better or they both finish failry close to each other in number of states and delagates, her campaign will need to re-evaluate their strategy or they can kiss their White House hopes good bye.

John Edwards: Congrats John, you won the white vote in South Carolina. That is all he can hang his hat on at this point. His home state, the state he won in 2004, he came in a disapointing third place. Edwards needs to evaluate his options, whether he wants to stick it out inorder to play "kingmaker" at the Democratic Convension or if he wants to cut his losses and endorse one of the two front runners. Whoever the nominee is, they should try to distance themselves from allowing Edwards to be their running mate. Edwards has made a habit of voting one way while he was a Senator and running the other direction while running for the Democratic nomination. Also, the fact that Edwards was a self promoter while running with John Kerry in 2004 raises many flags among Democratic faithful. Obama has stolen the identity as the "new" and "fresh" candidate anyways.


Side Note: I mentioned John McCain as a "loser" earlier. I say this because McCain did very well in South Carolina among those between the ages of 45 and older. If Obama becomes the nominee, McCain will be in trouble because Obama has polled very well among those under 45 and McCain has done well with those over 45. If those between the ages of 18 and 45 young people come out to vote like they have in South Carolina, Iowa, and New Hampshire and the Obama campaign hits the college campuses hard before the General Election, McCain will fall easily. The messages of Clinton and McCain is full of so much rhetoric and are so intrenched in the culture of dirty and deceitful politics, that unless you are a die hard supporter, it is hard to choice either one on principle.

The scoop on Tony Rezko, Barack Obama, and the Clintons

Ok, many have seen the video of the Sotuh Carolina debate in which Senator Hillary Clinton brought up Senator Barack Obama's history with Tony Rezko. Rezko has been indicted by the Federal government and will soon stand trial. Now there has been a photo of Mr. Rezko having a profession photo taken with him and First ladt Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton.



This morning on the "Today" show, Senator Clinton has said she does not know Mr. Rezko. It is true that when one is President and First Lady, you do numerous photo shoots with people you may never see or meet again.

Well, I did some research and it appears neither Antoin "Tony" Rezko, nor anyone with the last name "Rezko", has ever given any campaign donations to either Bill or Hillary Clinton (click here for the entire list of Rezko contributions). Mr. Rezko has donated to the campaigns of Al Gore, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Rick Lazio, John Kerry, and Barabara Boxer. The largest contribution he has made is $15,000 to the "DNC SERVICES CORPORATION/DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE". Also, I found that among those who Rezko has contributed to more than once are George W. Bush, John Kerry, Barack Obama, Rod Blagojevich, and Luis V. Gutierrez (For another comprehensive list, click here).

So the "grand" discovery of this photo of the Clintons with Tony Rezko does not appear to lead to any legitimate "connections" between the Clintons and Mr. Rezko. Rezko appears to have spread his money all over the place, mostly to Democrats. In this case (until other information appears) the Clintons are not being deceitful, they are just throwing mud around.

Bobby Fischer: American Hero or Disturbed, angry man?

As was reported over the weekend, Chess "superstar" Bobby Fischer died at the age of 65. He was famous for beating Russian Chess master Boris Spassky, in 1972. This was a huge accomplishment because Fischer was, and still is, the only American to ever win the World Chess Championship. He also did this during the height of the Cold War and tensions between the USA and the Soviet Union.

But many do not know the full story about Fischer and what occured with him before and after the 1972 championship. As a small boy, Fischer was mentored by legendary Sports reporter and author Dick Schaap. Here is a video of a documentary done by ESPN's Jeremy Schaap (son of Dick Schaap)about the "real" Bobby Fischer (You can watch the whole ESPN report that was broadcast over the weekend by clicking here):



The ESPN Sportcenter version of the report by Jeremy Schaap is longer is more detailed. But as you can see, no matter how much people see Fischer as some "Cold War" hero, he was a deranged, anti-semitic, anti-american man who died misserable. I am sorry, but I can never "look up to" or "admire" a man like that, let alone call him a "hero". What makes him so special compared to the "Miracle on Ice" 1980 US Olympic Hockey team that beat the "unbeatable" USSR Hockey team? Fischer on numerous levels fails in comparison.

Democrats go at it in South Carolina debate

Thank you to Hotair.com for posting these videos so quickly and saving me the time of hunting them down on YouTube. These two clips summarize the "infighting" going on between the two top Democratic Presidential Candidates: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Obama seems to have finally decided to stand up for himself some. Check it out:

Part 1


Part 2



Quick thoughts: Senator Clinton obviously dispises Senator Obama. It is written all over her face, posture, and mannerisms.

Concerning Obama's numerous "present" votes as an Illinois State Senator, there is a reason for that. In Illinois' state legislator, if a Senator likes the bill being voted on but does not like certain provisions or amendments to it, he can vote "present". If enough senators vote "present" the bill is sent back to be re-evaluted and sometimes "fixed". Obama excercised this practice numerous times, obviously. So it really does not mean Senator Obama doesn't "stand" for anything, there were bills that he liked for it's intent, but disliked the strings attached on it. This does not mean he does not have convictions or that he cannot make up his mind. It is a state practice, not a cop-out vote.

Nevada and South Carolina Results and analysis

Nevada Democrat Results (98% reporting):

Clinton 5,355 (51%)
Obama 4,773 (45%)
Edwards 396 (4%)
Uncommitted 31 (0%)
Kucinich 5 (0%)
Richardson 0 (0%)

Nevada Republican Results (100% reporting):

Romney 22,649 51%
Paul 6,087 14%
McCain 5,651 13%
Huckabee 3,616 8%
Thompson 3,521 8%
Giuliani 1,910 4%
Hunter 890 2%
Tancredo 0 0%

South Carolina Republican Results (99% reporting):

McCain 143,224 33%
Huckabee 128,908 30%
Thompson 67,897 16%
Romney 64,970 15%
Paul 15,773 4%
Giuliani 9,112 2%
Hunter 1,035 0%


The biggest winners on Saturday night were Mitt Romney, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, and Hillary Clinton. The biggest losers were Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, and John Edwards. Here is the breakdown:

Mitt Romney: With a strong win in Nevada and a disappointing 4th place finish in South Carolina, both results basically cancel each other out. Romney's win in Nevada continues the pattern that every time he wins (Wyoming and Michigan included) he wins decisively. The loss in South Carolina is like a block party that got rained on for the Romney campaign. He came in fourth place which would have really hurt him in the long run if he had not won Nevada. Entering Florida, Romney now has 3 wins (Wyoming, Michigan, Nevada) and came in second in two states (Iowa and New Hampshire). He must still finish in the top 3 in Florida to make sure he can be successful on Super Tuesday.

John McCain: Similar to Romney's situation, McCain's win in South Carolina was big for him, but coming in 3rd place, almost 17,000 votes behind Romney, really makes the win in South Carolina not as big a deal. But McCain does now have two wins (New Hampshire and North Carolina) and 1 second place finish (Michigan). But with all the doubts surrounding McCain's "lack of appeal" among the Conservative base of the party. McCain needs a top 3 finish in Florida to ensure he has a chance on Super Tuesday. He cannot afford to fall far off the radar or his campaign could be almost totally over.

Mike Huckabee: His 4th place finish in Nevada was not as important because he was not seen as a real contender n Nevada. But his close second place finish to South Carolina was a defining position for the Huckabee campaign. He lost by only 14,000 plus votes in a state that was suppose to be a race between McCain, Fred Thompson, and Romney. Huckabee is showing he can "hang with the big boys". Now, entering Florida, he needs a top three finish to show he can finish among the frontrunners for the nomination entering Super Tuesday. He cannot afford to squander the Iowa win and the South Carolina second place finish.

Fred Thompson: He was working hard to win South Carolina after coming in third in Iowa. But after coming in third in South Carolina, a neighboring state of his home state Tennessee, Thompson campaign is practically done. This was his last shot at having a shot at the nomination. All he can hope for now is to be the eventual nominee's Vice President pick to run with them. The quandary for Thompson comes down to how badly he wants to be in the White House. If he is a man of principle, he cannot run as VP with either Huckabee or McCain. He has made it very clear in debates his distaste with Huckabee's record and positions and there is alot of ill feelings from Huckabee towards Thompson too. On the other, despite McCain and Thompson history together as fellow Senators, his recent attacks on McCain may have soured things between them. Also, since Thompson is "more conservative" than Giuliani, the only person I could see Thompson running with is Romney. But then again who knows with Thompson.

Rudy Giuliani: I feel like a broken record, but the fact that Rudy thinks that doing horribly in every primary, then winning in Florida and coming out strong on Super Tuesday still sounds like an asinine plan to me. But who knows, maybe he will be successful. I am going to repeat something I said before about his campaign strategy:

"If he wins in Florida, then uses that win to propel him to a strong showing on Super Tuesday, it will be considered the greatest political strategy of the 21st Century. And then you will see over the next 20 years Presidential wannabees try to duplicate the same strategy. But if he fails miserably, then Giuliani will be a Political Science discussion item in Universities over the next 100 years."
(http://joshhennig.blogspot.com/2008/01/michigan-primary-results-and-analysis.html)

Ron Paul: He came in second in Nevada and 5th in South Carolina. The fact he got more votes in Nevada than Giuliani and Huckabee COMBINED is another sign that Ron Paul is truly the "protest" vote in the Republican primaries. He still will not win the nomination.

Duncan Hunter: He has ended his Presidential bid. No let’s wait and see who he will put his support behind.


Hillary Clinton: Her win in Nevada was close, she only beat Obama by 500 plus votes. But a win is a win and her campaign showed that their political spin machine still works effectively. She can take this win into South Carolina and say she is "keeping pace" with Obama and is not "behind" him. Hillary has won more states (3: New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada) than Obama (1: Iowa). It will still be a tight race in South Carolina. She needs to win in South Carolina to show she is the legitimate "frontrunner" entering the Super Tuesday Primaries. But a loss could mean chaos on Super Tuesday in a crazed state grab between her and Obama.

Barack Obama: The loss in Nevada is a bit of a blow on his campaign. With all the endorsements he received, it was expected he would do much better. But his campaign could take pride in how close they came (only 500 plus votes behind). Obama needs to win in South Carolina to keep pace with Clinton. A win for a Midwest Senator in the south would be a big key to Obama being the eventual nominee and doing well on Super Tuesday.

John Edwards: South Carolina primary is last hope at regaining any viability in this nomination process. He only got 396 votes in Nevada. Even Duncan Hunter got more votes (890) in the Republican Nevada caucus. Edwards’s campaign needs South Carolina or he is mathematically and perception wise finished.


Side Note: With all the discussion now about who on the Republican side may drop out, who will endorse who, etc., lets get serious here. Thompson will be the next one to drop out, then if Huckabee stumbles in Florida and is destroyed on Super Tuesday, he'll be done. I have had several people asked me about a potential "Huckabee-McCain conspiracy" going on. It wouldn't beyond politicians to work behind the scenes with each other. But a McCain-Huckabee ticket would be a bit hilarious on several levels. The man who is responsible for campaign finance laws as we know it today (McCain) running with the man who suffered the most from those laws (Huckabee). Interesting twist of fate that would be, huh?

Hillary Does Not Want to Appear "too feminine"

I wrote recently about Democratic Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton's "anti-masculine" tendencies. But now according to news reports, Hillary stiffed a Vogue Magazine photo shoot for a feature in the magazine about the candidate. Here is part of an article about this story that really stuck out to me:

Clinton was to appear in Vogue as the presidential race reached high gear, but backed out late last fall before a photo shoot was scheduled for fear of appearing too alluring. New York Post columnist Liz Smith reported Nov. 1 that "the astute [Vogue contributing editor] Julia Reed hung ten waiting to write about her and the giant fotog Annie Leibovitz had her cameras at the ready for nothing." A Vogue spokesman confirmed: "We were told by Ms. Clinton's camp that they were concerned if Clinton appeared in Vogue that she would appear too feminine." (Clearly, though, the presidential candidate didn't worry about that when she cried in New Hampshire.)

But Wintour didn't take Clinton's dis lightly. In her February editor's letter, Wintour takes Clinton to task for being behind the times. "Imagine my amazement, then, when I learned that Hillary Clinton, our only female president hopeful, had decided to steer clear of our pages at this point in her campaign for fear of looking too feminine. The notion that a contemporary woman must look mannish in order to be taken seriously as a seeker of power is frankly dismaying." Wintour continues: "This is America, not Saudi Arabia. It's also 2008: Margaret Thatcher may have looked terrific in a blue power suit, but that was 20 years ago. I do think Americans have moved on from the power-suit mentality, which served as a bridge for a generation of women to reach boardrooms filled with men. Political campaigns that do not recognize this are making a serious misjudgment."
(http://www.wwd.com/issue/article/121588?page=0)

Wintour is 100 percent right. The first female US President needs to be a woman, not a politician who happens to be a female. I think people in this country need to take what Wintour has said to heart.

Mike Huckabee is turning into a regular on the flip flop train

Republican Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee is making a trend of flip flopping and contradicting himself. Now Huckabee is saying, contrary to his official position on his website,that the US Constitution is a "living" and "breathing document". This is a point of view of many liberals and those who do not want to hold onto the reality that our founding fathers made the Constitution to be flexible to the will of the people, not changable for the sake to playcate to ideology. Here is Mike Huckabee in his own words; his explanation positions about the Constitution is inbetween 2 and 4 minutes of the clip below:



Side thought: When the interview ends, CNN's John Roberts has this look on his face which is almost screaming "I am glad this interview is over. He doesn't sound like a Republican to me".

As someone who has more than a passing interest and knowledge base about History and Constitutional law, when Huckabee makes statements such as "the Constitution was intended to be amended" and that we need to amend the Constitution to "preserve the sanctity of human life" at conception. What Governor Huckabee does not understand is that the US Constitution is a document that describes and outlines the underpinnings of our Federal Government. The Amendments are there to change or add elements to our Federal Law and preserve and uphold the rights of US citizens. And if laws were applied properly and case precident was followed more explicitly, there could be no Constitutional challenges to the viable life of an unborn baby. The authors of Roe v. Wade left the door open for states to regulate abortion. Huckabee's lack of depth of understanding concerning Constitutional Law and history should concern people because he sounds confussed and like someone who changes positions like a chameleon trying to gain votes.

Michigan Primary Results and Analysis

Republican Results (100% reporting)

Romney 337,847 39% 24
McCain 257,521 30% 5
Huckabee 139,699 16% 1
Paul 54,434 6% 0
Thompson 32,135 4% 0
Giuliani 24,706 3% 0
Uncommitted 18,106 2% 0
Hunter 2,823 0% 0


Democratic Results (100% reporting)

Clinton 328,151 55%
Uncommitted 237,762 40%
Kucinich 21,708 4%
Dodd 3,853 1%
Gravel 2,363 0%


The biggest winners on Tuesday were Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. The biggest losers were John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Hillary Clinton. Here's the breakdown:


Mitt Romney: This was a decisive win Romney. This was the state he was "supposed" to win according to the "experts". Romney needed this kind of win. He beat McCain, the 2000 Michigan Republican Primary winner, by a little more than 80,000 votes. McCain only beat Romney by 13,000 plus votes in New Hampshire. Romney lost to Huckabee in Iowa by only 10,000 plus votes also. But in Michigan, where it was suppose to be a "close" race, Romney won easily. Going into South Carolina, Romney has a solid shot at winning there aided by the winning momentum of Michigan. If Romney can continue this pattern of staying in the top 2, winning either South Carolina or Florida, when Super Tuesday comes he will have a strong shot at winning multiple states and coming out as the "front-runner"

John McCain: This is a hard loss for his campaign. He won this state in 2000 and was hoping the New Hampshire win could propel him to a win in Michigan. But with this decisive loss, McCain is entering South Carolina like a bruised, beat down fighter who taught the road to victory would be much easier. McCain has a rough history in South Carolina, where he flip-flopped on the Confederate Flag issue in 2000. Also, his characterization of the late Rev. Jerry Falwell and televangelist Pat Robertson as "agents of intolerance" has caused some Christian voters in South Carolina to not see McCain as someone who cannot stand for or identify with their values. McCain must overcome his past, the momentum of Romney, and the attack fire of Fred Thompson if he is going to win in South Carolina. McCain must finish in the top 3 to maintain his "electability" image entering the Primary in Florida. He needs to continue to stay in the top three if he expects to have a shot at winning any states on Super Tuesday.

Mike Huckabee: His 3rd place finish was a good sign for Huckabee's campaign. He is only one of three candidates in the Republican race to get 100,000 plus votes. This is the third state in which he has stayed in the top 3. Such a finish maintains an image of "potential" and "viability" in the long run heading into South Carolina and Florida Primaries. He received more votes in Michigan than Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, and Rudy Giuliani COMBINED! That is such a damning number. His finish in Michigan will certainly help his fortunes in other Primaries. But he needs to crack the top 2 in either South Carolina or Florida to ensure he can make a dent on Super Tuesday. He needs to avoid the appearance as a "one hit wonder" who can't finish higher than 3rd place in other states.

Ron Paul: He has no shot at winning the election, he is a protest vote for the far right. But getting more votes than Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani says that this is not just a fluke candidacy. He still could be a spoiler for someone in November if he continues on as an independent.

Fred Thompson: Finishing 5th makes it even more important that he win in South Carolina or his campaign is finished. There is no way around it. He has not gained any traction from the debates, so it's South Carolina or bust.

Rudy Giuliani: If he wins in Florida, then uses that win to propel him to a strong showing on Super Tuesday, it will be considered the greatest political strategy of the 21st Century. And then you will see over the next 20 years Presidential wannabees try to duplicate the same strategy. But if he fails miserably, then Giuliani will be a Political Science discussion item in Universities over the next 100 years.

"Uncommitted" and Duncan Hunter: I think Congressman Hunter is a good guy, but he still running is very sad. He should just drop out, endorse one of the top tier guys before South Carolina or Florida so he can help them get the nomination and there will be a place for Duncan as the nominee's VP or as a member of their administration. More than 18,000 in Michigan are "Uncommitted" which is just a sign that this race is far from over in the minds of the voters.


Hillary Clinton: Ok, let me preface these remarks by explaining that the Democratic Nation Convention (DNC) has stripped Michigan of its delegates, meaning that a win in the Michigan Primary was pointless towards the nomination process. The only positive to be seen from this "win" by Senator Clinton is that if she is the nominee, she will have a good shot at winning the state in the General Election. But the fact that she only received 90,000 plus votes than "Uncommitted" is a dangerous sign of the future for the Clinton campaign. 40 percent of Democratic Michigan Democratic voters are not committed to a Clinton candidacy. What if this state had not had its delegates stripped and the candidates had campaigned there, would she still have won? Sometimes voters pick a candidate because it is the "best" option. What if Barack Obama and John Edwards names were on that ballot, would she still have won? Too many "what if's" to say this would be something for the Clinton campaign to build on. If she looses Nevada and South Carolina to Obama (which is not a far fetched idea at all), she will enter Super Tuesday as a desperate candidate. She already has enough problems to deal with from the "anti-Clinton" crowd, but too many Obama wins just makes his candidacy more and more appealing as the viable candidate.

"Uncommitted": The "ghost vote" is one that shows that there is a significant amount of unpredictability with the Democratic Nomination than expected. The turnout on the Democratic side was much higher than expected. About 600,000 voters came out to vote in an election that meant literally nothing. Very interesting the motivation behind all these votes, but this is a massive protest vote against Hillary Clinton. We will have to wait and see how this affects the psychology of voters in Nevada and South Carolina.

Is Hillary "anti-masculine"?

It is not every day I read an article on Salon.com's website. But this article caught my eye and really made me think. Kudos to Camille Paglia for discussing this Politically Incorrect subject without worry of “attack”. This is an issue that Feminist/Moderate Conservative/Lesbian Best Selling Author and Radio Talk Show Host Tammy Bruce, that Hillary has a genuine contempt for men and such attitudes are harmful to this nation diplomatically, ethically, and socially. Some have also suggested that a Hillary Clinton Presidency would hurt Feminism and would undermine the foundations of the Women's Liberation Movement.

Here’s an except of what Camille Paglia wrote:

Hillary's feckless, loutish brothers (who are kept at arm's length by her operation) took the brunt of Hugh Rodham's abuse in their genteel but claustrophobic home. Hillary is the barracuda who fought for dominance at their expense. Flashes of that ruthless old family drama have come out repeatedly in this campaign, as when Hillary could barely conceal her sneers at her fellow debaters onstage -- the wimpy, cringing brothers at the dinner table.

Hillary's willingness to tolerate Bill's compulsive philandering is a function of her general contempt for men. She distrusts them and feels morally superior to them. Following the pattern of her long-suffering mother, she thinks it is her mission to endure every insult and personal degradation for a higher cause -- which, unlike her self-sacrificing mother, she identifies with her near-messianic personal ambition.

It's no coincidence that Hillary's staff has always consisted mostly of adoring women, with nerdy or geeky guys forming an adjunct brain trust. Hillary's rumored hostility to uniformed military men and some Secret Service agents early in the first Clinton presidency probably belongs to this pattern. And let's not forget Hillary, the governor's wife, pulling out a book and rudely reading in the bleachers during University of Arkansas football games back in Little Rock.

Hillary's disdain for masculinity fits right into the classic feminazi package, which is why Hillary acts on Gloria Steinem like catnip.... History will judge Steinem and company very severely for their ethically obtuse indifference to the stream of working-class women and female subordinates whom Bill Clinton sexually harassed and abused, enabled by look-the-other-way and trash-the-victims Hillary.

I wanted you to read all of that, written by woman, and to see the arguments by other women about Hillary Clinton, as a foundation for my perspective. I, at heart, am an "Old School Feminist". I follow in the tradition of those such as Susan B. Anthony and others who believed in the "equality of the sexes", that the subordination of women and distain shown toward them publicly and privately should end.

I know, as a male, that people even today treat women with different standards than men. For example, the "Boys will be Boys" mentality has led way to women feeling helpless when their boyfriends or husbands come home drunk and are abusive. Instead of calling the police or getting away from the abuse, women have been socially engineered to say and think things such as "When he is sober, he is wonderful" or "I can't change him, it is something I need to live with because I love him." These excuses are the result of this socially engineered thinking of "He's the man, your the woman, this may be the best you can get". Paglia is right, Hillary reinforces such thinking when she "stuck by her man" like some ignorant woman who is doing it because she doesn't know what else to do. Hillary did it for political reasons.

In society, people consider men who sleep around to be "Pimps" and "Playas". But women are called "sluts" and "whores". There has been for centuries a different standard given to men as compared to women. In turn, this is why a Hillary Clinton Presidency is bad for society and the progression of Feminism. Hillary wants to appear as the "best 'man' for the job". Only recently has she tried to appear "feminine" because she has view her femininity as a "weakness". A real strong woman can be "Femi" and still be strong. Some of the strongest women I know have long hair, dress nice, get their nails done, but still stand up for their rights. Even the Bible says in Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." The terminology in this passage and in Genesis in the Hebrew refers to a collective noun for both man and woman being created in the image of God.

Hillary Clinton has adhered to a set of ideals that a woman upon entering a man's world must conform and prove herself as much, if not more, strong than her male counterparts. This on the surface is all well and good, but the way she has gone about it has become a bad influence upon other women in America. A "Woman in a Man's World" does not mean women should "conform" to look like or act like men. Hillary, by her actions, is giving credibility and validity to Sexist Bias in this nation. Feminist does not have a hero in Hillary Rodham Clinton, it has an enemy.

So please, do yourself and America a favor, do not vote for Hillary Clinton because she is a woman, vote for her because you agree with her positions in comparison to her counter parts. Let a more deserving woman be the first woman President, not one who masquerades as a woman, but is at heart a political virtuoso who will do whatever it takes to attain her goals.

Obama gets interesting endorsement

Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama has received the endorsement from 2004 Democratic Presidential Candidate, Senator John Kerry. This comes as a surprise since Kerry's VP running mate, John Edwards, is running as well in this race. Kerry's endorsement could have helped Edwards a great deal. According to reports, the Clinton campaign was lobbying for Kerry's endorsement, going so far as to President Bill Clinton himself speaking to those close to Senator Kerry.

Kerry's endorsement of Obama does not surprise me one bit. Edwards was Kerry's running mate because Kerry wanted to get some "insurance" on winning a few southern states in the general elections. For all of Kerry's flip flopping and unorthodox reasoning for his positions, he was never as far left as Edwards is. In fact, Edwards was not a team player during their 2004 run together. The main reason Edwards has run is because he does not seem to want to "accept" a world in which he is not the nominee. His ideology is almost in line with far left ideology, the kind of stuff emanating from the likes of MoveOn.org and The Daily Kos.

Kerry not endorsing Hillary Clinton also is a sign that Kerry "does not forget" disloyalty. The Clintons did not do much to help getting Kerry elected in 2004. I believe this was because the Clintons wanted Kerry to loose so they could take "their shot" in 2008. If Kerry won in 2004, Hillary would have had to wait another 8 years (2012) to run in an open field. Also, Kerry and Clinton have not seen eye to eye on certain issues, such as Education, Iran, North Korea, or Health Insurance.

Also, the endorsement is political strategy at its best. Kerry knew that with the next three states being Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina, Kerry's endorsement becomes a strong tool for the Obama campaign. In 2004, Kerry won Michigan and Nevada. Kerry and his people know where the bodies are buried in those states. Wins in one of those two states could help propel Obama to South Carolina with another win under his belt and maintain Obama's "electability" credentials.

The specific way this endorsement hurts Senator Clinton is that it solidifies Obama as a "real" Democrat in the eyes of the party faithful. Obama has received a great deal of support from many Independents and Moderate Liberals along with a few Moderate Conservatives. Kerry, who is more left of center than Obama is, is essentially saying, "Don't worry, the 'D' next to his name is legitimate. He may not be another liberal like me, but that doesn't make him any less a democrat." Also, a Kerry endorsement may lead to other endorsements in the next few weeks from those who were still on the fence concerning their decision between Obama and Clinton.

New Hampshire Primary Analysis

Okay, first the results:

Democrats:(96% reporting)
Clinton 110,550 39%
Obama 102,883 37%
Edwards 47,803 17%
Richardson 12,987 5%
Kucinich 3,845 1%
Biden 616 0% 0
Gravel 397 0% 0
Dodd 195 0%

Republicans:(96% reporting)
McCain 86,802 37%
Romney 73,806 32%
Huckabee 26,035 11%
Giuliani 20,054 9%
Paul 17,831 8%
Thompson 2,808 1%
Hunter 1,195 0%


Upfront, the "winners" are Hillary Clinton and John McCain. The biggest "losers" are John Edwards, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, and Fred Thompson. Here's the candidate breakdown:

John McCain: If there was any state for McCain to do well in among the early primaries, it is New Hampshire. He won this state in 2000. Independents can vote in this state. This is important because McCain's support among more Independents and Moderates, more so than Conservatives. McCain has peeved many Conservatives with his positions over the years on issues such as Illegal Immigration, Campaign Finance Reform, the "Bush Tax Cuts", and his confusion with taking a consistent stance on Pro-Life and "Gay Rights" issues. (For an extensive breakdown of McCain's lack of Conservative positions and ideological morphing, click here). From this point on, McCain is going to need to maintain a top 3 showing in Michigan, South Carolina, and Florida in order to maintain any chance he has to win or finish well in any of the states on Super Tuesday.

Mitt Romney: Another second place showing for Romney should not be seen as a real "negative". Romney did win Wyoming, and he is the only candidate on the Republican side who has finished either first or second in the three early states. He needs to win Michigan in order to show he is not just a "second place" finisher. In track and field, there are those athletes who rarely win, but they always seem to come in second or third. Romney does not want to become that guy. If he does lose Michigan, he must win in South Carolina or his nomination hopes will be "living on a prayer" as he enters the Florida and Super Tuesday Primaries. As a side note, I am tired of the media attacking Romney because he has a lot of on hand cash and can use a plethora of his own money for the Presidential run. People should be glad he can finance his own campaign and is not subservient to the money with string attached that brings some candidates down because of "you owe me" donations. Romney does not have that dilemma.

Mike Huckabee: This was logistically a sore hit for Huckabee finishing third in New Hampshire. While finishing third is a respectable placement, Huckabee had 47,000 plus votes behind Romney (who came in second). He only had around 6,000 more votes than Giuliani (who came in fourth). That major drop off between second and third place kills much of the momentum Huckabee had after winning in Iowa. One of the major reasons Huckabee won in Iowa is because he was able to get a massive majority Social Conservatives and Christians to support his candidacy. But that same trend did not continue in New Hampshire where he was fighting for those votes with Romney. Romney was seen my many Social Conservative voters as the "only option" to McCain in the New Hampshire Primary. This perception may hurt Huckabee in Michigan, where Mitt Romney's father, George, served as Governor. If Huckabee is to finish second or third in Michigan, South Carolina, or Florida, it must be a much lower difference in order for him to do well on Super Tuesday. He must avoid the label of "one hit wonder" in order to have a solid shot at winning the nomination.

Rudy Giuliani: In October 2007, many political pundits and TV commentators believed that the New Hampshire Primary would be a "dog fight" between Giuliani and Romney. Well, they got the one name right, but now it is January 2008 and he finished in fourth place, 53,000 votes behind Romney. And now there is a poll that came out showing Giuliani in 4th place in Florida. Just three months ago Giuliani was seen has the front runner for the nomination and as almost unbeatable. Now he is in a fight to maintain legitimacy to be the nominee. This idea that he can win big on Super Tuesday and not do well in the lead up to Super Tuesday is turning out to be fools gold for the Giuliani campaign. He must finish in the top 4 in Michigan and the top 3 in South Carolina if he hopes to have a chance to win in Florida. Momentum is very important in these Primaries.

Ron Paul: He got 10,000 plus votes in Iowa, and in New Hampshire received 17,000 plus votes. Although he will not receive the nomination, he has shown he should not be ignored. Just imagine in a national race how many votes he could pull from both sides with his positions being very non-mainstream. This is not another Dennis Kucinich candidacy. This man has "spoiler" written all over his candidacy.

Fred Thompson: Finishing ahead of McCain in Iowa was a good sign for Thompson, but now finishing in 6th in New Hampshire and only receiving just under 3,000 votes is a major blow to his campaign. There is a difference between knowing you have a better chance in one state than another and just not even trying in a specific state. Thompson has been in South Carolina since the end of the Iowa Caucus. He didn’t not even travel to campaign at all in New Hampshire. All this campaigning in South Carolina must result in a win or his candidacy is through. Thompson should just start positioning himself to possibly be a Vice President candidate for the eventual Republican nominee. He would do well for a Romney or Giuliani as their VP.

Duncan Hunter: I am unsure why Hunter is still in the race. He does not have a chance at the nomination with a field that is very top heavy. He could help a candidate’s candidacy by dropping out and endorsing one of them. The one candidate he could help the most and push them ahead the farthest is if he would endorse Mitt Romney. Romney already has the endorsement of Board Security/Illegal Immigration guru Tom Tancredo.


Hillary Clinton: This was a big win for her. Many expected her to loose and some predicted she would loose by more than 10 percentage points. Now she and Obama both have one win each. This race for the Democratic nomination is turning out to look like a boxing match with numerous rounds that are up for grabs. Obama won round 1, Clinton won round two. With Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina ahead, she needs to at least finish in second in Michigan and Nevada entering the South Carolina primary. A loss for her in South Carolina would be hard to swallow 10 days before Super Tuesday. The race for the nomination is distinctly between Clinton and Obama. She cannot let him gain too much momentum or she could fall apart of Super Tuesday and be stumbling through the rest of the February primaries and caucuses. After the Iowa third place finish, he "electability" came into question, but this is a long race and she is in it for the long run.

Barack Obama: Coming in second does not hurt him in the long run. He got the win already under his belt. He has shown he can win a state. Entering Michigan and Nevada, Obama needs to keep pace with Clinton and try to win one of those two states. Michigan is winnable for him if he garner enough votes from the urban areas and then split the north western section oft he state in order for him to have a shot at winning. Nevada comes down to who the state union's support. If he were to loose both those states, South Carolina becomes extra important for him to win. Winning South Carolina will carry him into Super Tuesday with momentum and electability. A strong showing in South Carolina and on Super Tuesday will make him the favorite to win the Democratic Nomination.

John Edwards: He is pretty much done. He is probably staying in hoping to gain another second place finish ahead of either Obama or Clinton in Michigan or Nevada and then place all his hopes on winning in South Carolina. He won in South Carolina in 2004, so if he does not win in South Carolina, look for him to either drop out or fade away as supports will go else where.

Bill Richardson: He is staying in the race to gain enough name recognition and exposure so he can potentially be the Vice Presidential Candidate for whoever becomes the nominee. The fact that he had almost 13,000 votes shows he has enough of a following that makes him being a VP candidate very appealing, especially since he would make New Mexico an essential "gimmee" in the National Election.

Dennis Kucinich: Congrats to Congressman Kucinich, who received more votes than Fred Thompson. His candidacy is going now where, he is a protest candidate at this point for voters.

Joe Biden and Chris Dodd have officially dropped out of the race, although both combined received almost 1,000 votes. Mike Gravel, like Kucinich, was a protest vote candidate.

Why Huckabee can't get his stories straight is beyond me...

Republican Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee said in a debate in New Hampshire that he has supported the Iraq War, the Surge, and President Bush's Iraq strategy before Mitt Romney did and when Romney didn't support it. Here is the video:





Now, thanks to hotair.com, here is Huckabee saying somethig different on MSNBC January 2007:





Oh great, is he going to be now like John McCain and flip on different positions and issues? If he is going to change positions for political gain, he should be rejected straight up.

Iowa has spoken and what is the aftermath

First, the numbers speak for themselves:

Republicans:
%
34 - Huckabee - Winner
25 - Romney
13 - Thompson
13 - McCain
10 - Paul
3 - Giuliani
0 - Hunter

96% Reporting

Democrats:
%
38 - Obama - Winner
30 - Edwards
29 - Clinton
2 - Richardson
1 - Biden
0 - Kucinich
0 - Dodd
0 - Gravel

100% Reporting

Obviously, the biggest winners were Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama, neither was expected to win even a couple months ago. But the "second tier" winners are John Edwards and Fred Thompson. The "big losers" are Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. Let’s break this down by each candidate:

Mike Huckabee: The experience of being the Governor for 10 plus years of a Midwest state was a major weapon in Huckabee's arsenal in propelling his win in Iowa. The fact that he knew how to appeal to voters and he to work a ground operation that got his message and name out to more than 35,000 voters is very impressive. With all the negatives that have come out about him, he was able to overcome this in Iowa. This win is a great momentum builder for the Huckabee campaign. While it is very unlikely that Huckabee will win in New Hampshire's primary, but this win will cause some disruption in the efforts to gain the swing voters. With this win, the Republican Primary votes will be split 6-ways. As long as Huckabee is in the top 4 in New Hampshire, he can utilize this win to propel himself into contention to have a chance in Michigan, South Carolina, and Nevada.

Mitt Romney: While he came in a sound second place, he was still far ahead of the rest of the pack. Foxnews went out of its way to give a member of Romney's campaign (Bay Buchanan) a hard time. They even laughed at her in the background during the interview. This was disgusting. His second place finish makes him a stronger long term candidate than many of the other candidates. He can take value in the fact that he came in second in a state that was more so Huckabee's "backyard" than any other candidate on the Republican side. He still has a strong shot at winning in New Hampshire, Michigan, and South Carolina. The conjecture of this "horrific" defeat for the Romney campaign is media spin. Romney had 10,000 more votes than Thompson or McCain and had more than 10,000 votes than Paul and Giuliani combined! If the Republican field shrinks sooner than later, this win could help propel Romney to still be able to be the Republican nominee. But as long as this field stays densely populated, the Romney campaign will struggle to gain significant traction.

Fred Thompson: This is a moral victory for the Thompson campaign. Thompson came in a tight third place, gaining a few hundred votes more than John McCain. Thompson's campaign now needs to go into New Hampshire and make sure he stays in the top 4 so he can head to Michigan and South Carolina with a legitimate chance to win either one of those states. He needs to at least come in second in one of those two states or he will have almost no chance at winning the nomination.

John McCain: The media hype about McCain's finish in Iowa is sickening. Sure, he is still in the thick of the race, but the fact that Thompson and Romney finished ahead of McCain is still a reality. McCain is battling for votes and still will need to take some votes from Giuliani, Thompson, Huckabee, and Romney in order to do so. He needs to get the Giuliani and Thompson supports who see Iowa as a major loss for those two candidates, the Romney supports who have not stuck with Romney through thick and thin, and the Huckabee bandwagon supporters who found out some "distasteful" information about Huckabee. McCain's finish in New Hampshire will determine how well he can do down the road. If McCain can finish either first or second, it will set him up to potentially win in Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina, which will propel McCain to win a good amount of states on Super Tuesday which will set him up to be the Republican nominee. But if McCain finished 3rd or 4th in New Hampshire, he will have an uphill battle to gain the Republican Nomination because McCain needs momentum more than any other Republican candidate, aside from Huckabee.

Ron Paul: This was a BIG night for his campaign because he gained more than 10,000 votes, which more than double what Giuliani did in Iowa. Only 3 percentage points separate him from McCain and Thompson. While Paul will not get the Republican nomination, he is building the base, the name recognition, and ability to gain votes to allow him to extend his run past the Republican Nominee selection. Do not be surprised if he continues his run for President all the way to November. His run is not as much for him to be elected President, but standing for a cause and being a guy people like him can vote for and not pick between two people who they really don’t like anyway. Also, states like New Hampshire and Nevada could produce positive finishes for him where he can steal votes away from Huckabee and McCain. He can steal Huckabee's non-religious moderate supporters and McCain's older supporters who feel McCain is not the rogue and maverick as McCain tries to spin into his public image. Be careful, Paul could be a difference maker in New Hampshire, Nevada, and possibly in November.

Rudy Giuliani: I know the Giuliani campaign is "focusing on Super Tuesday". But by the time Super Tuesday comes around, Giuliani could finish 3rd or lower in New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina. The idea that he could still rebound from that to win big on Super Tuesday and propel him to the Republican Nomination is set in a fantasy world. Finishing in 6th with only 4,000 plus votes will hurt him in New Hampshire. He needs to finish in the top 2 in New Hampshire and Michigan to hope to stay in strong contention.

Barack Obama: Major victory for Obama's campaign. And even more so, his "victory" speech was full of such passion and optimism that the speech alone could propel Obama to a win in New Hampshire. This is also important because the voters in Iowa rejected the attacks and negativity of the Clinton campaign. The Obama campaign needs to capitalize and draw out this point. That speech made him sound much more Presidential and optimistic than his opponents Clinton and Edwards. If he can go into New Hampshire and win, this will ensure him the leading candidate for the Democratic Nomination and set him up to take South Carolina and numerous states on Super Tuesday. He has a good chance at gaining the Democratic Nomination and then the Presidency.

John Edwards: This is step one for the Edwards campaign: come in second in Iowa. Now he must either win or come in second in New Hampshire or his candidacy will diminish and he will eventually drop out of the race. Of the three top tier Democratic candidates, he is the farthest to the left on the issues and he also is the only one who has already run for President once before. Time will tell if those two factors will help or hurt him. I project they both will hurt him. Voters seem to want new blood and someone who has beliefs that are inline with the average, independent voter. Edwards does not fit that category.

Hillary Clinton: Her third place finish is a wound to the Clinton Machine which has been oiled by the ideal of inevitability. The idea that it is "her turn" or that she is the anointed one should now be thrown away. Until she begins to discuss issues and start really explaining her positions and policies, she will be no more than an average negative politician running a negative, elitist campaign. Except for the infamous "Russert debate", every Democratic debate up to this point has been full of softball questions and lackluster follow-up questions. Whenever Clinton has been challenged, she looks bad (just like McCain, but they are soft with him too). When Obama speaks, he thinks about what he is going to say, Hillary has programmed responses, almost like how the video game Madden 2008 has Play-by-Play commentary that was previously programmed. She must win New Hampshire to ensure her likelihood of being the Democratic Nominee. I have said for the last 12 months that Hillary Clinton is not a shoe-in for the Democratic Nomination and she may loose the nomination. She needs to prove she is electable by winning early states before attempting to believe she has a shot at winning many states on Super Tuesday.

Bill Richardson: Although he finished with only 4 percent, him staying in the race is based on the hope that as more people drop out, the more votes he could gain. He has no chance at being the nominee. He is running to be the Democratic Nominee's Vice Presidential Candidate.

Joe Biden: He has ended his run for the nomination, but whoever he endorses could change the dynamics of the race. His endorsement will bring more credibility to a candidacy.

Chris Dodd: He is done and he got one vote in Iowa. Pathetic

Side Note: Whether it is Foxnews and CNN, both have been biased and blind to reality.

*Foxnews made fun of the Romney and Paul Campaigns while practically glorifying McCain and Huckabee's strategies and "victories" (Huckabee a literal victory and McCain a "moral" victory).

*On the Democratic side, both CNN and Foxnews belittled the Obama win where possible and kept bringing up how Clinton did not loose "real bad" and about the "Iowa Curse" (since there has not been an Iowa Caucus winner who went on to become President in decades).

*Edwards came in second, ahead of Senator Clinton. Period. Enough spin Foxnews.