Prohest: Romney is so creepy I have nightmares about him molesting my chicken... Why dont they ask about mormonism, lets find out what crazy deranged crap he belives in.... This ultra über creep think's he can buy & attack-ad his creepy ass into presidency..

And that religious nut-job baqnjo playing Huckabee needs to DIAF.

Clintons are just another ultra insider, who will run business as usual.. Lobbyist-Fest + no real politics for the first 4 years, because they would all about getting another 4 years. Next 4 years is all about cashing in.

I Like Obama, he might very well be all hot air and no results. But why not belive he might move some things..

Rudy 9/11 just proved what a total FAIL he is, with the ultra mismanagement of his campaign. He should run for National Failure.

Its hard not to be sympathetic towards McCain. Like the fact he has the guts to "swin upstream" sometimes, shows he is a honest man. But since he is a republican, it wont happen in the big run, hope he wins the nomination though..

//ROmney? = Fark him and everybody that looks like him.

Are you Billywitchdoctor.com? Molesting your chicken? Do you hate The Colonel as well? And Popeye?

It's about time. Edwards has been running for president since he was elected to the Senate. I didn't see him do much for North Carolina, and wasn't really impressed.

/Go back to your cushy state job with UNC-CH

I am disapointed in the lack of Truth-O-Meters in this thread.

Fascinating

Deucednuisance: Take, for instance, Florida: 42% of male voters voted for Clinton.


Something like 40-60% of the ballots cast in Flordia were absentee ballots and many of those were cast over a month ago.

Florida doesn't reflect any of the things that have happened in the last month, inculding any of the primary wins.

Most of the votes were given back when no one really knew who Obama was and Clinton was a household name.


Look at the states from the other primaries for more accurate demographci resaults.

Media says he won't endorse anyone today.

I'm hoping that means he's gonna come out with an endorsement for Obama on Monday. Or before then, if Hillary manages to make it back to the front page.

/Chris Matthews is clearly a Clinton-supporter and it's driving me nuts

lawrnk: Good riddens to him, and hoping Hillary and Obama follow shortly.

Re-defeat socialism!!

That's some powerful ignorance, my friend... You honor the troll retard community. Now go watch TV while the grown-ups talk, dillweed...

/Oh and DIAF

Insurance_EE_guy: Fascinating

By the way from this graph you can see when Obama's support goes down so did Johnny's. EXCEPT for the last part, showing Edwards down AND Clinton down with support going to O.

memilkisyummy: danlpoon: Absentee ballot, let me show it to you.

Is your contention that College kids are voracious voters? They "turn out"? That they can sway an election? That colleges are a GOOD place to spend campaign resources?

I mean, I love your clever and original prose but nothing you said disagrees with anything I said. Try again.

The campaigns aren't buying those Obama Rocks t-shirts, and Ron Paul's campaign is viral. College kids bring passion and free time to a campaign, two things that every presidential campaign needs. Obama and Paul are the 'trendy' candidates so I'd bet dollars to donuts most of the college kids sporting Obama or Paul gear ponied up the bucks themselves to buy the stuff. Hell, they probably bought the stuff from the campaigns, thus creating a net profit for the campaigns.

Your assertion that college kids don't vote is way off, IMO. College kids vote, it's the non-college kids that age that don't vote. Of course I have no numbers to prove or disprove that, but I'm sure they exist. I'm just guessing. I can tell you that in college, I voted every year, and all my friends did too. I know as much as anyone that anectodal != real evidence, but it's true nonetheless. And college kids seem to me to be more engaged in the process these days than they were in the 90s when I was in school.

Golf clap

/college student
//registered at home
///voted via absentee ballot in 2004 and drove home to vote in the local election in 2005
////will graduate and vote again this year

LadyBinky:

/Chris Matthews is clearly a Clinton-supporter and it's driving me nuts

That's sarcasm, right?

REPARATIONS!!! I can'ts wait to get PAID!!!!

themeaningoflifeisnot [TotalFark] Quote 2008-01-30 01:15:26 PM

"The overall preference figures mask a pronounced racial divide among Democratic voters: About two-thirds of black respondents said they would vote for Obama, whereas only about a fourth of white respondents said he was their choice."

(http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-poll24jan24,0,6697328.story?coll=la- home-center).

If that is true in any significant respect--note I stress "if"--isn't there reason to wonder whether the white male Edwards supporters you suggest are anti-Clinton would ultimately come over to Obama?

Frankly I think those statistics are HIGHLY misleading because they aren't taking into account the GENDER BIAS.

Hillary's biggest support base is white women. That is just the facts.

But Hillary has NOT being doing better amongst white men.

It was widely reported that Hillary got more white votes than Obama in SC. This is ture. However, she TIED him for white male votes. She only got more of the white vote because of women. And that was SC, where racial tensions are high. In the other primaries, Obama has been getting the white vote.

The bullshiat that is being spewed by Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller about Dems going over to McCain or Romney rather than vote for Clinton is ridiculous. It's scare tactics intended to stampede the Democratic herd away from Clinton simply because they don't like her.

Honestly, it think you are wrong. There are a LOT of people who hate hillary. I know a lot of people who would refuse to vote for. Keep in mind that McCain has traditionally been VERY pouplar amongst white men and amongst moderate democrats in general. He is an attractive allternative.

Sure, if it was Hillary vs. Hucakbee or whatever, they might not flee Hillary. But against McCain they will.

Anyway, I've been a lifelong democrat and I promise you there is no way in hell i would ever vote for Hillary Clinton. Personally I would vote green in the next election... but others might just not vote or vote McCain. This isn't a myth. It is how things will happen.

Finally, despite what I read on these boards, the vast majority of women I know will vote for Clinton over any other candidate.

That is cool.

In all honesty though, I"d say 75% of the women I've talked to are voting against her. That includes my lifelong democratic grandmother and all of her daughters. All old women and all people who have worked for the democratic party in their life.

earthwirm: Not buying your lil story. Planes were grounded until 9/14. Cept for a couple of emergency flights.

Never said I got the flight, which is why I said that after I said it was a strange day. Said it was rescheduled. I forget the time, but it was definitely after the first plane hit (everyone's cell phone went off in the cabin - doors weren't closed yet and we were still at the gate). The announcement came up that the airport was being closed due to a security incident and we could get our flights rescheduled. We all got off the plane and stood in line at the counter. Wasn't till I was on the bus back to Woburn that it all started to fall into place what had just happened.

Sorry if you don't believe me.

TheRaven77: You say we need oil, while the smart ones in this country (engineers, enviornmentalists, up and coming alternative energy companies) are providing ways to get off it.

If there is no Plan B for energy, it's because of the jokers at the oil companies. Let's send the army after them, not Iraqis.

Petroleum is far, far more than just energy. If some mad scientists developed a fantasy ∞ zero-point energy source, and some genii magically installed it into every power plant, every vehicle, every furnace or heater, everything on Earth that currently uses fossil fuels for energy, either directly or indirectly (including electricity generated from petroleum, natural gas, or coal-fired plants), so that, beginning immediately, we never again had to burn a single drop of petroleum for energy, we're still screwed without petroluem.

The cotton-polyester blend underwear, shirt, and socks you may well be wearing right now? The polyester part is petroleum. So is any nylon or rayon you might have in your dresser, closet, or wardrobe.

Those vinyl shoes? Petroluem.

Anything plastic whatsoever, including your computer keyboard, monitor bezel and housing, much of the computer housing, computer motherboard mountings, plus major portions of your car, appliances, toys for your kids, medical gear ranging from stethoscopes to syringes to housings for advanced diagnostic and monitoring equipment, packaging and packing materials, etc. etc. etc. etc.? Petroleum.

Speaking of medical needs: the vast majority of pharmaceuticals, ranging from chemotherapy drugs to Vaseline® Petroleum Jelly? You guessed it: petroleum.

Lubricants: no matter what powers a motor or engine or other metallic moving-parts device, it still needs to be lubricated or else it will sieze up and stop operating, and petroleum-based oils are still by far the best and most cost-effective lubricant available. This is not just for the engine in your car, but also the factory robots that make the engine and the rest of the car, for instance.

Food additives ranging from preservatives that allow grocery stores to keep the prices down to artificial flavorings and colorings? Petroleum. And, most importantly, the Green Revolution pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers that multiply the crop yields of the world's supply of arable land by many-fold and are the sole reason that the Earth can even hope to even attempt to sustain anywhere near the current world population of nearly seven billion people? Petroleum.

Do you think that food just magically appears on your grocery store shelves and restaurants? No. Petroleum is very heavily involved in every stage, from the plowing of the fields prior even to planting the seeds, to transporting the processed foods to the store and/or restaurant. No matter how much money you have saved up for retirement, you won't be eating much if we run out of petroluem, for this reason alone, unless you retire to your own farm and retain health enough to subsistence-farm it yourself. Better hope the climate holds up, too.

Guess what? You can't make any of those things that I mentioned (collectively called "petrochemicals") out of wind power. Nor water power. Nor solar power. Nor geothermal power. Nor even nuclear power. Nor hydrogen fuel cells (in fact, those are impractical because while hydrogen itself is very plentiful in the universe, [A] it ain't so plentiful down here in the lower atmosphere, and , even if it were, or we had some plentiful source that didn't involve using up more energy than we got back [e.g. splitting water into oxygen and hydrogen], the catalyst grids of fuel cells are made of platinum and that most definitely is not abundant!). Some can be made from biodiesel and the like, but most cannot.

Canyoneer is right: we need petroleum. We're not addicted to it in the sense of a crack addict. We're addicted to it in the sense of an oxygen addict.

canyoneer

You're telling me you are DENYING all the money the oil companies throw around funding "teach the controversy" crap against things like global warming and alternative energy?

and you're calling me delusional...

I know the state of energy today... no need to pretend you know more than me. What's going to happen when Iraq dries up? What's going to happen when ANWAR dries up? huh?

all people like you have to offer is kill more people and get more oil.

Where's the serious amount of money being put towards energy research, and not being sucked up by some oil company subsidary or "research farm"?

Why do we still give tax breaks to SUVs? Where's the investment in public transportation?

We wouldn't need so much oil if people didn't use so damn much of it unnecessarily. We use a disproportiante amount of energy compared to the rest of the first world.

YOU'RE the one who's delusional if you think that you can kill innocent people (directly or indirectly) for cheap gas. It's bad for them, cause they, you know... DIE, and it's bad for us because their kids grow up and are mad as hell.

see: Al-Qaeda, Iran, etc.

The short of it is: there's no Plan B, yes, but invading countries and killing their people for their stuff has not, nor will it ever, work in the long run.

Doc Daneeka: There's a reason Florida has its own tag on Fark.
Besides, it has no delegates,

Oh, but it will.

and no one campaigned there,

She wasn't in Florida after the polls closed to attend the Feast of St. Juniper.
Was it a Victory Party? The she considers it a victory, which means she considered it a contest, and part of her campaign.
Was it a Thank You Party for her campaign workers? Then I assume she was thanking them for something.

so the Florida results mean fark-all. will be played up and shamelessly exploited by the Clinton campaign for the rest of the year.

TwelveToneRow: choice and consequence: TwelveToneRow: Choice and Consequence: I would definitely vote Republican against Hillary. Hillary sets off every alarm bell and red flag I've got.

I'm curious to know why. Not maliciously curious, but honestly. All of the tangible people I know cannot, for the life of them, give me concrete and believable reasons outside of "OMG TEH SOCIALISM" and "OMG TEH CLINTON."

I admit a great deal of it is intangible. She simply comes off as entitled, manipulative, pandering, unethical and divisive at a time when that shiat has gotten really old.

I'd argue that it's all but proven that she is a poll-driven political windsock. That she has no permanent ethics, only permanent interests (to coin a phrase). That she doesn't have remotely the experience to be President (not that Obama excels there either). Her "here's $5,000 for having a kid" plan and "Christmas Gifts of massive new govt. handouts, don't worry about who's paying for it" commercial convince me she has no interest in fixing the deficit and, not surprisingly, offends my libertarian side. She hasn't crowed about it lately, but I have no doubt she'll be for banning guns "for the children", just as she was for censoring video games "for the children", and I'm quite fond of the 1st and 2nd amendments. I believe she'll be as authoritarian as she can at a time when we have unwisely given the President substantially more domestic power, and with a weakened Republican Party, Dem controlled Congress, and Clinton controlled Democratic Party offering more assistance than resistance. Worse, I believe she'll be authoritarian solely in her own interests.

No UN invasion/economic collapse fantasies, but I expect that the US after Hillary would be deeper in debt, controlled by an ever-more powerful Executive, heavily divided, and faced with severely eroded (more so than now, perhaps in different ways) personal freedoms. Example: Under HC universal healthcare means not having insurance would be a crime, similar to driving without insurance (that very comparison straight from her campaign):
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/17/health.care/index.html

Now we're talking. This I can appreciate.

Her politics are very breezy, that's for sure. As far as an authoritarian streak, I'm not sure. Sometimes when I hear her speak, she makes sense. Other times there's something...intangible, you're right, that doesn't sit well with me. She's a lot of talk, with very little in the way of substance; it's very "I have a plan!" without actually telling us what the plan entails and, more importantly, what we'll have to pay.

Like I said, I'm not pro-Hilary by any stretch of the imagination, and I'd certainly like to see some fresh blood in DC.

I appreciate the atypical response as to why you don't like her. Kudos.

THIS.

Actually, the authoritarian angle sums up exactly how I feel about her very well also. I think this is true for a LOT of people that are intellectuals that dislike her. I personally place people that dislike Hillary into several classes, but find them all useful (if somewhat distasteful at times):

*The biased--these are the worst. The misogynists and "I can't have a woman president" types.
*The ultra-fundamentalists. These are nearly as bad. They dislike all the dems, but Hillary the most because she is WIFE OF BILL.
*The queasy. These are people who get a bad feeling about her, but haven't placed a reason behind it. My wife is one of them. My wife says, "I would like at some point to have a woman president, but not Hillary. She scares me." This is the kind of person that watches hillary and gets a vaguely (or sharply) uneasy feeling that something dishonest has happened, but they aren't sure what it is. I think MOST anti-Hillary folks fall into this category, especially the democrats that are anti-hillary.
*The thoughtfully distrustful. I personally place myself in this group. Hillary, for us, appears to be making an attempt at driving the government in a direction that is sharply incompatible with what we believe is appropriate. This is different from the ultra-conservatives for a number of reasons, but largely because I see little difference between what Hillary would do and what some of them do, just a matter of style. They would ban books about witchcraft (Harry Potter) and free thinking, while she would ban video games and guns, both of them with the supposed ideal of 'saving the children'. In truth, however, I think that both groups, at the core, are about controlling the masses, and that bothers me.

As a Mormon (not relevant to Hillary, but part of my own reasoning on most everything--your own experience is probably quite different), I have long felt that agency (freedom) is one of the most important ideals that we have. Personal responsibility and what we do with that agency is also exceptionally important. A nanny-state government, where everything that might be dangerous is banned or restricted to protect the children, limits agency and makes it very difficult to learn discover what we are capable of doing in life, which I think is part of the whole point of living (and, even if you don't approach life from a religious perspective, philosophically, it is fairly easy to make the argument that if life has any purpose, it is about discovering the absolute boundaries of one's abilities while obtaining maximal enjoyment).

Of course, similar categorization exercises could be conducted regarding Obama, McCain and Romney, with nearly equal ease.

For example:

Obama
Biased: check
Ultra-conservative: Check
Queasy: Not so much. Actually, he makes most people I know feel pretty good, which is why I think he's doing pretty well.
Lack of Experience: This is the real problem for him.
Analyzers: Check--This category will always have some people. It's actually fairly easy to find a good reason to state why a person's stated positions are unworkable.

Romney
Biased: He's Mormon. Check. If you don't believe it, do a google search and read what some of the anti-Mormon people write in terms of hate-filled lies. There are some anti-Mormon sites that are fairly even-handed, but most are filled with invective, vularities and otherwise remind me of Fark. Err...
Ultra-Left: The Move-On crowd will never like anyone from the R column. Check.
Queasy: Sorta Check. He's a millionaire and he's been somewhat evasive about his religion and position on things like abortion. That's played poorly (insincere). On the other hand, some people really think he looks/sounds presidential, so maybe not...
Analytic: Again, he's changed his position on several 'key' issues that may or may not really be key. Somebody will find a reason to tear him apart.

McCain.
I'm tired of this game. You play it. Check for most of them, bias included. Some people are just tired of old white guys. Old part especially. White too. And he's been a politician long enough to make anyone queasy.

I don't know who I'm voting for, but it won't be Hillary. Maybe I'll vote for Xenu. Or maybe I'll vote for Walken. Or, can I please rewind and vote for Perot (another guy with the initials RP who didn't really do that well--shocking). Maybe I can vote for Drew Carey (he's libertarian, from what I hear). I hereby nominate Drew Carey for President. Can I get an AMEN?

COMALite J: TheRaven77: You say we need oil, while the smart ones in this country (engineers, enviornmentalists, up and coming alternative energy companies) are providing ways to get off it.

If there is no Plan B for energy, it's because of the jokers at the oil companies. Let's send the army after them, not Iraqis.

Petroleum is far, far more than just energy. If some mad scientists developed a fantasy ∞ zero-point energy source, and some genii magically installed it into every power plant, every vehicle, every furnace or heater, everything on Earth that currently uses fossil fuels for energy, either directly or indirectly (including electricity generated from petroleum, natural gas, or coal-fired plants), so that, beginning immediately, we never again had to burn a single drop of petroleum for energy, we're still screwed without petroluem.

The cotton-polyester blend underwear, shirt, and socks you may well be wearing right now? The polyester part is petroleum. So is any nylon or rayon you might have in your dresser, closet, or wardrobe.

Those vinyl shoes? Petroluem.

Anything plastic whatsoever, including your computer keyboard, monitor bezel and housing, much of the computer housing, computer motherboard mountings, plus major portions of your car, appliances, toys for your kids, medical gear ranging from stethoscopes to syringes to housings for advanced diagnostic and monitoring equipment, packaging and packing materials, etc. etc. etc. etc.? Petroleum.

Speaking of medical needs: the vast majority of pharmaceuticals, ranging from chemotherapy drugs to Vaseline® Petroleum Jelly? You guessed it: petroleum.

Lubricants: no matter what powers a motor or engine or other metallic moving-parts device, it still needs to be lubricated or else it will sieze up and stop operating, and petroleum-based oils are still by far the best and most cost-effective lubricant available. This is not just for the engine in your car, but also the factory robots that make the engine and the rest of the car, for instance.

Food additives ranging from preservatives that allow grocery stores to keep the prices down to artificial flavorings and colorings? Petroleum. And, most importantly, the Green Revolution pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers that multiply the crop yields of the world's supply of arable land by many-fold and are the sole reason that the Earth can even hope to even attempt to sustain anywhere near the current world population of nearly seven billion people? Petroleum.

Do you think that food just magically appears on your grocery store shelves and restaurants? No. Petroleum is very heavily involved in every stage, from the plowing of the fields prior even to planting the seeds, to transporting the processed foods to the store and/or restaurant. No matter how much money you have saved up for retirement, you won't be eating much if we run out of petroluem, for this reason alone, unless you retire to your own farm and retain health enough to subsistence-farm it yourself. Better hope the climate holds up, too.

Guess what? You can't make any of those things that I mentioned (collectively called "petrochemicals") out of wind power. Nor water power. Nor solar power. Nor geothermal power. Nor even nuclear power. Nor hydrogen fuel cells (in fact, those are impractical because while hydrogen itself is very plentiful in the universe, [A] it ain't so plentiful down here in the lower atmosphere, and , even if it were, or we had some plentiful source that didn't involve using up more energy than we got back [e.g. splitting water into oxygen and hydrogen], the catalyst grids of fuel cells are made of platinum and that most definitely is not abundant!). Some can be made from biodiesel and the like, but most cannot.

Canyoneer is right: we need petroleum. We're not addicted to it in the sense of a crack addict. We're addicted to it in the sense of an oxygen addict.

HOGWASH. We are you trying to kill the planet?

Tatsuma: however, he's also the only anti-federalist in the race (which is really what his states rights idea is) and that's a big negative for a lot of people

yeah, he's definitely a neo-confederate

i wouldn't call him a neo-confederate, he isn't trying to secede. he's an anti-federalist. and if you remember your history classes, the government as it was intended was a careful balance between federalism and anti-federalism. it just so happens, though, that the federalists have completely taken over, and most people don't even realize that there was once a dissenting view that many americans held.

the main thing i like about the guy is that without both federalism and anti-federalism in the picture, the original balance can't be kept.

Bill Frist: Do you honestly think she would be getting any votes if she wasn't and old female?

Dude. Deep breaths.

FORTY-TWO percent of male Democratic voters in Florida voted for her.

That's a fact, jack.

Not an impression, not an opinion, a fact.

Which does not support your argument. Deal with it.

"Facts are stupid things".

canyoneer: Meet the 44th President of the United States:

(Not my endorsement - my prediction)




Nobody wants another unstable nutjob with a screw loose..

I predict Obama in a landslide...

FORTY-TWO percent of male Democratic voters in Florida voted for her.

And how many of those were "old"?

This is farking Florida we are talking about. And I already dealt with this in a previous post which you convienently ignored.

he's speaking now

If Hillary wins because Michigan and Florida delegates suddenly count, I am moving to Europe. It's not that I have a huge problem with her, because I don't think she's that bad. I will lose faith in our Democracy here. It was a dumb move to say they didn't count, but it's worse to change the rules after the game starts.

themeaningoflifeisnot [TotalFark] Quote 2008-01-30 01:30:02 PM
My bet is that Edwards endorses Clinton in the next couple of days.

Everyone who knows anything about Edwards finds a clinton endorsement HIGHLY unlikely.

Edwards is a very principled man and he STRONGLY disagrees with Clinton an a lot of issues.

He will remain neutral in all liklihood, or endorse Obama. I could be wrong, but most pundits agree with that.

So, COMALite J are you saying everything is static? That we don't change or update our technology at all?

We NEED to adapt to the situation like we NEED oxygen.

I understand that plastics and many other manufactured goods come from oil. Fine. that doesn't mean that we should throw up our hands and say "ok, there's nothing we can do because we are so dependent on it.

we could try USING LESS of it by buying LESS shiat. People spend lots of money on shiat they don't need. We use a disproportiante amount of everything compared to our peers, but a quick and easy way would be to tax meat or otherwise make it more expensive, tax incentives for grocery stores that buy their food locally or from the closest possible source.

I'm not saying that it's simple, I'm not saying that we should live like cavemen. There are very rational and easy things all of us can do to use less energy at the same time we work on adapting to our changing environment.

Bill Frist: This is farking Florida we are talking about. And I already dealt with this in a previous post which you convienently ignored.

Well, I sure didn't miss this self-contradiction:

I"d say 75% of the women I've talked to are voting against her. That includes my lifelong democratic grandmother and all of her daughters. All old women and all people who have worked for the democratic party in their life.

That sure doesn't support your "old women vote Hillary and that's it" argument, now does it?

Look, you can say she has no male support all you want, but to then to try to qualify it as a matter of age, especially when, as has been pointed out upthread, that the majority of all voters are by your reckoning "old" (you pup!) is spinning things pretty hard.

Look, I'm not necessarily a fan of Hillary, but I'm most definitely not a fan of false narrative.

Why didn't Mr. TwoAmericas make his announcement in front of this house instead of the Habitat for Humanity one?

WTF? He didn't endorse anyone!

/can't believe I just watched the whole speech

That sure doesn't support your "old women vote Hillary and that's it" argument, now does it?


Um... it doesn't contradict it either. Obviously 100% of old women don't vote for her.

I'm basing that claim on the actual exit polls. I know from these conversations that actual stats and facts don't excite you, but lets be real here.

Jim Webb > Wesley Clark.

Look, you can say she has no male support all you want,

I never said that. I said her three bases are:

1) Hispanics
2) White women
3) Voters over 60

Obviously she still gets some support from other demographics, but she isn't particularly strong in any of the others. Most of them she is either roughly tied with Obama or loses handidly.

Obama won SC on an 80% African-American vote. Clinton hardly bothered to campaign there because the result was a foregone conclusion.

You are completely naive if you believe this.

Hillary was far ahead in the polls as little as a month ago. She campaigned HEAVILY there and put in a lot of money.

It was only in the few days prior to the primary, when it finally became inevitable that she would lose, that she skipped out and pretended she didn't care.

You probably believe that RUdy was always waiting in Florida and hadn't campaigned heavily in NH too, don't you?

Some people fall for more spin than dradles... jesus.

themeaningoflifeisnot: Obama won SC on an 80% African-American vote. Clinton hardly bothered to campaign there because the result was a foregone conclusion. I think it is pretty broadly acknowledged that the SC results cannot reasonably be seen as representative of the Clinton - Obama dynamic in upcoming primaries. I would expect Clinton to do much better among white voters in states where she has real traction, and those states just happen to be big delegate holders.

Obama also won Iowa which is 96% white. Congratulations on falling for the Clintons' "OMG BAMA IS BLACK CANDATE" spiel though.

Clearly, Edwards was caught between Barack and a hard place.

If it somehow came down to Clinton as the Dem candidate, I'm probably going to look into third party/independent. Right now I'd vote for Obama because he seems like he at least has potential for good things. Of the Repubs I wouldn't vote for any of their front runners. Years ago I would have went with McCain, but he just doesn't seem to have the fortitude he used to. Just look at how fast he folded over torture. It felt like one week it was a horrible thing he could never approve, the next suddenly he was telling Bush it was A-ok.