So the Iowa caucus is concluded and Obama and Huckabee are the big winners.  I'm thrilled that Obama won, but it is worth stepping back for a moment and realize how tremendously weird this process is. 

For the Democratic side of the Iowa caucus, the "voters" all meet at their polling places at the same time.  So they all go to a highschool gym or some such.  Then the voters are asked to stand in different locations based on who they want to vote for.  The votes are tallied, then anybody who supported a candidate that got less than 15% is asked to pick a secondary candidate.  So they shuffle around again and we get the final numbers.  Now, keep in mind this is precinct by precinct.  So if a candidate got 10% in every precinct, they'd end up with 0% at the end of the night because they never got 15% in any one of them. 

Weird right?  Well yes, but it gets weirder.  On top of that the actual delegates are assigned using an entirely different math.  If you win a precinct, you get delegates based on your percent of the vote, but also based on previous turnout of that precinct.  So, if the turnout was weak last year, you actually get less credit for winning in that district. 

So, at the end of the day, Obama, with a decisive 9% victory over Clinton, got 16 delegates.  Clinton got 15.  Edwards, who finished a hair better than Clinton, got 14 delegates... which is less than Clinton.  Oh, and also, there are 12 "superdelegates" that aren't even determined by this vote.  I'm not sure HOW that happens. 

Now, just to really show you how screwed up this is, consider this: the Iowa caucus determined the fate of 45 delegates.  To win the nomination, a candidate needs 2064.  So, Obama, the "big winner" got .7% of the delegates he needs to win.  Whoopdyfreakindo. 

But hey, if the conventional wisdom plays into Obama being the president, more power to them.  But it all seems pretty ludicrous to me :)

This is Hillary Clinton's last advertisement before the Iowa Caucuses tomorrow:




This is Barack's:


I've already stated several times that I'm supporting Obama, but I find the difference between these two ads striking.  When I watched Hillary's ad I actually had to double check that she wasn't using the script from the opening ad in the movie, Bulworth.  The one that goes, "we are on the doorstep of a new millenium". 

I am really getting sick of the primaries.  Why?  Because I see a bunch of Democrats making total asses of themselves fighting for their particular candidates.  I'll be honest here, I favor Obama, but I'd happily settle for Edwards if he took the nomination.  Hillary.... not so much.

Anyhow, the latest bit of bullshit is people going after Obama saying he's anti-union.  They sent out an e-mail to supporters asking people to send them money to help combat a bunch of money being spent to help Clinton and Edwards by independent groups.  This article seems to be where the bulk of this started. 

The Obama campaign said this:

Right now groups supporting Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are flooding Iowa and the other early states with millions of dollars in paid ads, phone calls, and mailings. Some of it is negative and even deceptive, and a lot of it is paid for by huge, unregulated contributions from special interests.

Okay, so far so good, but where they tar Obama as anti-union is that some of those independent unregulated contributions are in fact coming from unions.  They specifically list for Edwards:

Working for Working Americans/Carpenters: $516,216.51
Alliance for a New America (SEIU): $760,801.00

At no point does Obama specifically mention that unions are the issue here.  In fact, one specific 527 that Obama has complained about is actually run by a former campaign manager of Edwards.  Edwards may not be coordinating directly, but it's at least shady enough to be worth criticizing.  So maybe that's what Obama was talking about in his memo.

Also, just because they are unions doing this, does that mean it's all clean and wonderful?  AFSCME is backing Hillary Clinton to the tune of almost a million dollars and sent out a rather controversial flier attacking Obama's health care plan.  The flier apparently pissed off a number of AFSCME members.  So, is criticizing something like that an attack on unions more broadly?  I don't think so.

My point here though is that all of this is just retarded.  I hate this dirty politics mud slinging crap.  If you're saying Obama doesn't like unions, then tell me where he says it.  Don't just read into things any sort of conspiracy you want.  If you don't like Obama, or you just like Edwards more, then fine, go with your bad self.  Don't just make shit up. 

I'll be so glad when the primaries are over and this stupidity can go away.

Hillary Clinton on video games:

When I am president, I will work to protect children from inappropriate video game content.

How about you let parents protect their children?  K thanks!

Quoting from this blog post over at the Washington Post by one of their staff writers:

Advisers to John Edwards believe Clinton's troubles began long before the Philadelphia debate. They mark the transition point in the Democratic race to the Yearly Kos conference debate in Chicago in August, when Clinton defended lobbyists and declined to join Edwards and Obama in ruling out Washington lobbyists' contributions.

To be clear, at the time, I'd made no decision about whom to support.  I was actually rather curious to hear what she had to say.  What she said didn't particularly impress me, frankly.  Now as the inevitable Hillary's campaign ceases to look so destined, I'm thrilled that my efforts possibly had some part in her down fall.  It made all that hard work that much more worthwhile.

Oh and apparently Bill Clinton has insider knowledge he wants to share:

Later he said that his friends in the Republican party had indicated that they felt his wife would be the strongest candidate, partly because she had already been "vetted" -- another subtle slap at Obama.

Oh puuuuhhhhleeeeease.  Bill, I liked you as a president, generally.  I had my issues with you, but mostly you did a good job.  But seriously man, STFU.  Republicans play up fear of terrorism.  Democrats play up fear of Republicans.  If I was going to be fearful, I'd rather go up the food chain and buy the Republican bullshit. 

This is was a precinct captain for Hillary Clinton:


Also, a few days ago I posted about the attacks on Obama for his former drug use.  I didn't realize at the time that the attack on him went further.  They actually indirectly accused him of being a drug dealer.  They didn't say he was a drug dealer but did the usual asking a question to imply it.  This is backfiring BIG time.

Shaheen, the guy who made the proxy attack has resigned and apologized, but the campaign is still taking it in the teeth.  They've particularly pissed off a number of black voters who, not surprisingly, noticed that nobody's ever accused a politician of being a drug dealer, no matter their history except for Obama, the black guy.  Yeah... 

Thanks Hillary, it was nice seeing you.  Given the primary timing here, the momentum that exists before the Christmas holiday is likely to carry into the primary unabated, and it's definitely not in favor of the Hillary.  I'm sure you'll make an excellent adviser to Obama :)

Oh, btw, a note about names.  You'll notice that with the candidates I tend to use Hillary's first name but the last name for the other candidates.  Initially I did this because I was trying to make it clear which Clinton I meant.  However, I also found out that Hillary has actually put a lot of effort into branding herself under her first name.  I expect it's for largely the same reason, that she doesn't want to be confused with her husband.  So it's not that I'm a sexist and refer to her in a less formal way because she's a chick.

I mean yeah, I'm sexist, don't get me wrong, just not sexist for THAT :)

Not that I was planning to vote for her anyhow, but this REALLY turns me off:

"The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight ... and one of the things they're certainly going to jump on is his drug use," said Shaheen, the husband of former N.H. governor Jeanne Shaheen, who is planning to run for the Senate next year. Billy Shaheen contrasted Obama's openness about his past drug use -- which Obama mentioned again at a recent campaign appearance in New Hampshire -- with the approach taken by George W. Bush in 1999 and 2000, when he ruled out questions about his behavior when he was "young and irresponsible."

Shaheen is a Clinton supporter and is acting as a proxy here to attack Obama on his former drug use.  I am so so so infinitely sick of the hypocrisy about drug use in this country.  The vast majority of people in this country self-medicate in some fashion.  Various drugs, alcohol, etc.  To come after Obama because he's honest about what he's done in his life instead of lying like Bush?  I mean if anything that honesty is proof to me that he's a good choice because, it could very well be a political liability but he's being consistent about openness and honesty.