What are tags? You can give your posts a "tag", which is like a keyword. Tags help you find content which has something in common. You can assign as many tags as you wish to each post.
View posts by people in your network with tag obama
This is exactly how an interviewer is supposed to act. Aside from the palpable irritability, this is how a candidate being interviewed should respond.
Note, though, that the Obama campaign basically canceled all contact with this TV station after the interview. People ask why interviewers do not ask tough questions and play hardball with the candidates. The reason why, readers, is that they do not want to lose future opportunities.
*sigh*
Sometimes capitalism can be so dictating, huh, Barack?
This is basically the only word I could sputter out when people asked me (the chief politico) what I thought about her. I consider myself pretty knowing when it comes to American politics, but I really did not know who the governor of Alaska was, who Sarah Palin was, or that McCain was considering either of them -- let alone the fact that they were one and the same!
I thought this plan was good because it would get the enraged Fem-Nazis who just want to see a woman in the White House to vote for McCain. It would also harbor support from those people who are voting for the black guy to reassure themselves that they are a good person. I would bet this type makes up a fair sized part of the voting mass. Republicans? The stogy traditional party wants a woman in the White House? Diversity from the GOP? It can't be! Yes, people thought this was a monumental election... a woman and a black guy. Well, Hillary got knocked out and here another woman crops up. 2008 is a year for the record books.
Sarah Palin is the first woman on the GOP's chief ticket. She's also likely the only candidate except Teddy Roosevelt that knows how to field dress a moose. This woman is exceptional. She knows how to disassemble, clean, and reassemble an M16. She's got five kids, one with Down syndrome and one in the military. She comes from Alaska (where ANWR is, sillies!) and she advocates drilling! Granted, it pays to align with McCain's message and current trends, but if it were really as disastrous as the greenies would have us think, Palin wouldn't be advocating destroying her home state.
Speaking of remarkable women... Cindy Hensley McCain owns a beer distributorship and she's in an automobile drift-racing team with one of her sons! The Republican ticket has a war Veteran/Veteran Senator, a beautiful First Lady who owns a beer company and races cars, a gorgeous woman Governor who fishes and hunts with a second-man who is a professional snowmobile racer.
The Democratic ticket has a freshman Senator lawyer with a grumpy, unpatriotic lawyer wife. Anyone up for a quick poll?
Remember how Democrats would attack Bush for 'sending our boys into harm without offspring in the military', to paraphrase? John McCain has one son in the service and one in the Naval Academy while Sarah Palin has one that just left for Iraq. I think that if they think the mission is important enough to risk their own children, well, the Democrats have little room to squirm.
I was watching Newt Gingrich give a small talk on C-SPAN during the RNC. He was talking about a variety of things, but when he got to Sarah Palin he said that a reporter came up to him and said, "What about the experience problem?" Newt replied, "I think Senator Obama has a huge problem to overcome." That captures the essence of it right now -- though Alaska has the population of San Diego, though Wasilla AK has only 8,000 residents, VP Sarah Palin has more executive experience than would-be Prez Obama.
Does that scare you?
This is a big election. Obama's "lead" over John McCain is less than the margin of error in most polls, which means they are essentially tied. Obama's lead is maintained because young people think it's cool to vote for the black guy, if for no other reason. While they're voting uninformed, it's their American right.
Oh, and another thing -- during the DNC Obama was repeatedly touted as the first black Presidential candidate. No, that's wrong. Obama is just as black as he is white. Remember, he's biracial. Using that logic, he's also the X-hundredth white candidate nominated for the White House.
Obama's other big lead comes from his excitement: Yeah, Barack! Whoo-whoo! Fancy catchphrases! Empty words! Let's cheer! Well, I think he can expect that lead to shrink, even to transform into a deficit because of Palin/Biden. Everyone was pumped about Obama's veep. Who was it going to be? It'll be exciting! He's the candidate for change, remember? Well, you could hear the media and idiot-America let out itscollective breath when he picked Joe Biden. John McCain has been painted by Obama as a representative of Old Washington, that is, what he's been meaning to reform. John McCain took office in 1987. He's been a Senator for 21 years! Who could be more fresh than Obama, who is fresh in Washington he doesn't know where the men's room is in the Capitol building?
Not Joe Biden! He took office in 1973! That's right -- 35 years in Washington. He took office when Barack Obama was 12. How can that be a representative of change? Obama popped his own balloon filled with "FRESHNESS & EXCITEMENT!" by picking this thorough Washington insider.
John McCain isn't integrated into the Washington machine -- he doesn't even feel compelled by duty to his party, as noted multiple times during the RNC to my confused state. Why tout his maverick, voting-against-party style in a room filled with Republicans?! Sarah Palin surely is the freshest of all four. I doubt she's even vacationed to Washington!
I checked out a magazine rack today. A quick glance at the 20 or so magazines (not all political) showed Obama on one, McCain on two, and Palin on at least half a dozen. While they weren't all feature stories on the candidates, and while they all weren't necessarily good reflections of them, the key to getting these votes is the spotlight. Sarah has stole it from Obama.
Sarah Palin is supposed to be this conservative god that will be there weighing on McCain's decisions and ready to take office should anything happen to McCain (who's 90+ y/o mother attended the RNC). Bristol, her seventeen year old daughter is five months pregnant by her eighteen year old fiancee. Granted, pre-marital sex and teenage sex are sort of big no-no's in the conservative movement, but these attacks that paint Sarah Palin as irresponsible are terribly wrong. We're electing the mother, not her teenage daughter's poor decisions!
The liberal media loves nothing more than to point out conservative hypocrisies on the topic, sometimes by comparing the comments denouncing 17-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnancy with the support for Bristol and Sarah Palin. I would hardly consider it hypocritical. Jamie Lynn Spears is a celebrity. Young girls, preteens and teens look up to her. She has a show on a children's channel. She's a role model, whether America and the parents of the kids who watch her show want her to be or not. A girl who is going to have no impact on anyone else's life getting pregnant is a bad thing, sure, but it will not have an effect like Ms. Spears' pregnancy did.
People also like to point out how Sarah Palin fired Alaska Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan for refusing to fire a trooper who had a bitter divorce and custody battle with her sister. "That's abuse of power!" screams the liberal media. Oops, I guess they forgot to mention that the trooper Tasered his own stepson and threatened to kill his ex-wife's (and Sarah's) father.
Well, those facts aren't important anyway, are they? Just so long as we can sling mud at the conservatives for Savior Obama.
Someone asked me what would be the best strategy for Barack Obama to get elected. I told them, "He should have changed his name to Brock O'Bama and passed himself off as an Irishman."
Thinking back, it might have been more advantageous for him to just become a Republican.
FINALLY! I saw this story on Google News. I was racking my mind to think what Democrat was in the Middle East... surely they'd mention Obama by name. I was wondering what idiot pilot would land in a minefield... I was hoping they were referring to Obama.
John McCain, and now GDUBS, has called for the ban to offshore drilling to be lifted. Now, I do believe that it was McCain's idea first, and then Georgie, thinking he'll be brilliant, exhibits the same sentiments. I don't know what he was trying to do... maybe he was trying to show solidarity between someone easily identified as a good Republican (well, you know what I mean) and someone on shaky footing who needs to firm up the GOP base for the general election. (McCain's getting like 83% of GOP voters to GDUBS' 95%ish).
McCain may be a good Republican (not necessarily a good conservative) but he needs to pass himself off as a moderate Republican so that the misguided Democrats who are in a fret from having a strong Democrat drop out and having one actually have a flying chance at winning. Bush may be trying to shore up support among Republicans, but all he's doing is tying McCain to himself, even though McCain made the first move.
Which brings me to another point -- is Big Media full of idiots? Well... yes. I think, much like Big Oil and Big Pharma, we shall start calling it Big Media. I like that. Anyway, as stated above, McCain came out with it first, not GDUBS. Besides, no matter how much they like to associate McCain with Bush, they are separate people. In fact, they ought to lighten up on McCain a bit -- remember the McCain-Feingold Immigration Bill? That was not the conservative thing to do, and hardly what Bush would've done (though he is weak in that area.)
Back to Big Oil... after McCain and Bush (here embodying the Republican train of thought, and hopefully that of all sane Americans) pushed for a end to the ban on offshore drilling, the Democrats struck back.
[Let me interject here that ending the ban on offshore drilling wouldn't make it a free-for-all. It would just end the federal ban on it so that coastal states could decide for themselves. That way, eco-nut Calis who don't have any oil could rail against the man while reasonable Gulf Coast states could boost their economies and help lower fuel costs by keeping it in America.]
The Democrats, whom I was beginning to give the benefit of the doubt, never ceased to amaze me. They called for nationalizing the nation's oil refineries!
I could not believe it. I was dumbfounded.
They propose acquiring private property and running it? It's beginning to look like the Dems actually believe in a mommy state that'll always take care of them. Aside from Welfare and Medicare and this proposed socialized health care, now they want to take over a service to which there is no alternatives?
The government can't do anything right. Take the passport thing where you have to have one to come into the US from Canada or those other assorted countries. Do you know how long it took me to get my passport? Well, neither do I, because I still haven't gotten mine back!
If they can't get me a passport in a reasonable amount of time, how are they going to maintain enough gas at a cheap price when they aren't allowing hardly any to be produced domestically? We pay a large tax on gas to keep our roads nice. I can assure you that PA's roads suck.
I'll pay $4.00 a gallon to keep it out of the government's hands. This was not in the Constitution, which provided for a small government in which all powers not specifically delegated to the feds goes to the states. That's been conveniently overlooked, eh?
These Democrat monsters, these idiots, want to slap windfall taxes on oil companies. You tell me how taking away more profits from them will make our prices go down? It's always been shown that the taxes get passed on to the consumer. Americans want to stick the oil companies in the eye, but taxing them (which will be passed back to the consumer) is not the way to do it. You have to stop buying their product. I'm not going to prospect on what should be done there in this blog.
Oil companies are making record profits this year. That's terrible, especially when they are raping Americans. Know what? I want to remove taxes from Big Oil. Let's give 'em a tax break. I believe Exxon Mobil pays near 41% in taxes. That means that 41% of the money they take in goes straight to the government -- they don't even see it. On top of that, they have to take out for overhead and $1xx-a-barrel crude. They still manage to turn record profits. That's how to run a company.
Exxon Mobil pays $27 billion dollars in taxes (on $67.4 billion in taxable income at 41%). They pay as much taxes at the bottom 50% of individual taxpayers... that's 65,000,000 people. They pay 3% of their adjusted gross income, which is taxes of $27.4 of $922 billion. That's right -- Exxon Mobil pays as much as taxes as half of American taxpayers. You want to give them more, and expect to see gas prices go down?
Look, I'm willing to give the Democrats the benefit of the doubt. The problem is there is nothing left to doubt.
The day was abuzz with politics as the Pennsylvania primary was well underway. I shared some of my thoughts with you before in "Ode To Pennsylvania." As this crucial April 22 draws to a close, I have more thoughts to share.
Firstly, I haven't watched the news at all today. I haven't even read any election coverage online. It's been a busy day. But I'm going to make a prediction. My prediction is the Hillary is going to sweep Pennsylvania by double digits, my guess being 10% or 12% over Obama at most. There are two reasons I say that... first, it'll be that much because she's been canvassing Pittsburgh, Philidelphia, and the liberal hell-hole Johnstown (of John Murtha fame.) Chelsea's been hitting up college campuses for quite a while. Slick Willy has be been riding up and down PA hitting small and medium sized towns for votes. Obama is just one person.
But Obama has many volunteers. Not only that, he's outspending her three- or four-to-one. Obama started commercials fast and thick, but Hillary now has about the same number as him. In my town, there are many, many Hillary signs and only a few Obama signs. Less than a week ago the Obama HQ here got real Obama signs. Previously they were displaying a fairly well-done hand-drawn Obama sign in the window.
I think Obama's going to take Philidelphia, hands-down. He'll get Pittsburgh, too. Hillary, though, will get everything outside Philly limits, like the suburbs, as well as everything between Philly and Pittsburgh. You see, Pennsylvania, overall, is a red state. There are just so many people in the liberal Pitts-Philly areas that it counterbalences it. That's why we're traditionally known as a swing state. We bleed purple, like a few other states.
Hillary is going to take the traditionally red country area. She's the less psycho-liberal of the two. She's got major campaigning going on, she's got the support of the gov'nah and John Murtha. She was also born here, little do most people know.
Anyway, I think she'll win by double-digits. She needs to win by that much to give the superdelegates doubt at the convention (and split the party, to the GOP's cheers.) If she loses, or wins by a very narrow margin, and Obama gets the nomination, well...
I can see her running independant. She has the balls to do it. The Clintons hate losing -- they're a vicious couple. Whether she could pull it off... that would be something else entirely. I think if Obama could round up the money, he might do alright as an independant. Hillary, though, is the type of politician who could handle an independant run.
Anyway, even then, it would more effectively split the Democratic party than would any faltering at the convention. I think even though 2006 was bad for the GOP and 2008 was forecasted to be worse... well, I think it's going to be better.
WEST CHESTER, Pa. -- After dodging questions at the April 16th Democratic debate about vice presidential selections, freshman Senator Barack Obama announced today his selection for a running mate: "This country has been run for too long by the stagnant old style of politics. America must move beyond this archaic rationale... it is time we embraced change!"
He addressed a large crowd at a West Chester, Pa. town hall meeting with these unprecedented remarks: "This election cycle, the Democratic party has become too divided... too bitter... it has been swept up in this 'war mentality' broadcast by Ms. Clinton in her attempt to steal the nomination. No more will America be fatally gripped by these divisive notions.
"My campaign is about change. The politicos and pundits have been speculating who I might invite on the ticket as a running mate. Even at Wednesday's debate, I was asked about accepting Ms. Clinton as a vice-president. Today is a new day for America."
That's when he unveiled his vice presidential selection: "Joseph Alois Ratzinger."
Gasps were audible in the crowd of about 300. A surprise trip to Pennsylvania was not on the itinerary for Ratzinger, who had just met with President Bush earlier in the week. Coinciding with Ratzinger's birthday and his third year in office, his trip to the Northeast Corridor came at a convenient time for Obama's campaign, which was suffering setbacks in Pennsylvania.
A spokesman from the Obama campaign stated that "having a reigning Pope as a vice-presidential candidate should be a big boost for Obama's Pennsylvania campaign." An aide close to the Holy Father confirmed the selection: "His Holiness will have far greater resources to practice Jesus' teachings in his new position as vice president."
A California Congressman, who wished to remain nameless, told the Philadelphia Tribune that while a papal vice president might do well for America's perception abroad, he was personally disappointed with the selection: "Obama will be plagued with allegations of flip-flopping. He can't possibly remain pro-choice with a papal veep. This choice could isolate a large chunk of the Democratic party."
A Real Clear Politics phone survey of 684 registered Democrats showed a slight gain of 2 percentage points in the Keystone state for the Illinois Senator, while nationally Ms. Clinton showed a surge of 7 percent over Obama.
Obama was describing how jobs had been disappearing in small towns in Pennsylvania and across the Midwest for 25 years with nothing to replace them. He then added: 'It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment, as a way to explain their frustrations.'
Well, I live in a smallish medium town of 15,000 people. Jobs have been disappearing. People are mad about that, sure, but we aren't bitter. Our town has adapted and developed into other industries after the traditional manufacturing jobs have started drying up.
Why, as it happens, I spent two hours shooting clay pigeons with my shotgun on Friday and tomorrow I'm going to mass. I've shot for a while now, I've always gone to church. The same with my father and grandfather. Is Obama proposing that areas that have a plethora of jobs are "past" religion and arms?
I don't take offense at his comment. He's allowed to make himself look like an ignorant ass. I'm terrified at the implications of his comment, though. He's shown his incompetence before (like justifying his friendship with Rev. Wright by throwing his white grandmother under the bus.) I am scared by how his mind operates. He says we cling to religion and guns. No, see, religion and guns are part of America. This isn't like how those crazy Mormons cling to polgamy. I read that comment as he thinks he's above or beyond religion and guns.
Now, I honestly think that Hillary will win Pennsylvania by a narrow-to-medium margin. There's no way she can sweep the state. I also think there is a very slim chance Obama will actually "take it" at all. Something that I've found... interesting: Those annoying yard signs.
I've never gotten one of those before for my yard. What's interesting, though, is that there is a huge proliferation of them, a huge amount that I've never seen before. People are genuinely interested in this election. I have faith in democracy! Why, it's the first time I'm proud of my country in my adult life! (*drips with sarcasm*)
Anyway, there's the unprecidented amount of those signs. The large majority are for Congress as our district's representative isn't running for reelection. There are some presidential ones. Guess, right now, which candidate has the majority of the signs in semi-rural conservative small-town PA?
Ha, fooled you! It's Ron Paul. It scares me to say that the most signs go to Paul. Ever see those huge signs for Paul in the dumpy pick ups? I think Obama captures the blacks, Hillary, the chicks, and Paul the folks who need new trucks.
Though... I'm proud to announce that I haven't seen a single Obama sign, but more to that later. Second place comes Hillary with an alarming number of signs. Disappointingly I haven't seen any McCain signs but I suspect that is because he has clinched the nomination and the GOP HQ hasn't set up yet. I doubt they (or the Dem's HQ) will until their respective conventions.
If you drive down my street, the house that is directly at the end (across the perpendicular road) has a Hillary sign. It's like a "T". Their house is right across from where the verticle part hits the horizontal part. I live on the verticle part.
I get angry every time I have to pull in my street by that sign. I have vowed to get a McCain sign for my front yard just as soon as they are available. I could call the campaign and have them send me one...!
Anyway, so yes... something that I notice that frankly scared me is that there is a "Obama For America" center downtown. They rented this tiny little commercial outfit. It's amusing, though. They don't even have any official signs or stickers in the windows. They're all hand-made! Kinda reminds me of this pic I saw online:
So, anyway, what with so many Hillary signs I think she's got everywhere but Philly, Johnstown, and Pittsburgh locked up. I'm actually really excited about this because it will give her more of a fighting chance, hopefully dragging the fight to June if not the convention!
Anyway, I think this is the best thing that could happen to the GOP. In 2006 the GOP lost a majority in Congress... politicos were calling for a trouncing in 2008... Hillary emerges as a front runner... Obama fights her... McCain, a right-leaning centrist with liberal tendencies (admittedly not the ideal conservative candidate) clinches the nomination... Hill and Obama scraping for candidates late into the game... PA will prolong the fight... the Dems divide... the angry voters head to the semi-lib McCain... happy GOP POTUS!
Ahh, yes, the sweet smell of hypocracy in the morning!
I'm not voting for Barack Obama. He's a dirty negro.
I'm not voting for Hillary Clinton. Her place is in the kitchen.
How does that sound? Doesn't it make me sound so arrogant? That's because that sort of talk is bigoted. Whoever talks like that has another thing coming. Somewhere Hillary Clinton was, I think it was getting off a plane, some man repeatedly yelled, "Iron my shirt!" As much as I hate Hillary, that's despicable.
I think discrimination on anything that a person has no control over -- such as sex or race -- is discrimination in the highest form. What gets me, though, is something of a different matter.
Jesse Jackson endorsed Barack Obama as his candidate of choice. We know Jackson's rash behavior when it comes to racism... what does it say about the endorsement?
The Alabama Democratic Conference recently endorsed Obama, providing him with a key black endorsement. A county commissioner involved was quoted as saying Clinton was most likely to win in November "because of her husband and because of some other things, mainly because she's white." What does that say about the endorsement?
The National Organization for Women (NOW) endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton for President. Their Political Action Committee calls it "Make History With Hillary." What does that say about the endorsement?
Isn't it racism or sexism to endorse someone solely on those traits? What makes liking someone based only on those traits any better than disliking someone only on those traits?
A Democratic calling card
The NAACP has confused me this election cycle. The California NAACP endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton for 2008. I can only assume that they slipped up and actually endorsed a candidate that they might agree with. Then again, this isn't the national NAACP.
People have criticized John McCain as being too old. At least AARP doesn't have such an agenda.
You see, ground commanders -- people in Iraq, not Washington DC -- said they needed this, fast. Congress dilly-dallied about it for two years, arguably raising the Marine death toll considerably due to those bombs and mines they were making and getting from the Iranians, like those improvised ones that would explode, shoot a pointy piece of molten metal from a tube and cut into a Hummer. Doesn't work with the MRAPs. Landmines? Don't work so well with the MRAP. That's what was killing a lot of our guys.
The troop surge is actually working, to an extent. The guys on the ground say they need more guys, so they get more guys, and it works. The guys on the ground say they need bomb-proof trucks, Congress says "Pfft" and guys die. Isn't that a simple algorithm?
I'm half tempted to run for Congress. Think I'd make a goo d Senator? That's where the glory is, folks. I'd just have to resist the urge to slap Hillary... or Obama... or Barbera Boxer... or Ted Kennedy... or Diane Feinstein... or Nancy Pelosi... or Harry Reid (especially.)
Anyway, yes, since we so love our government, and Texans are so proud, well, let's roll them into one. Here's the Texas legislature, doing what they do best.
Well, the numbers are in. South Carolina choose Obama in the Democratic primaries. But who would have guessed otherwise?
It's his race, stupid! You see, I really don't think it was much of a primary. They forecasted that 52% of the turnout would be black. Obama won with 55% of the votes. I doubt that all of the black voters voted for him, but I'm sure more did than not.
He's black, you know! I read articles and hear news stories about all sorts of pundits saying that they think that some white voters will vote against Obama because he's black. I'm sure that is going to happen. There'll be voters who vote against Hillary because she's a chick. There'll be voters who will vote against McCain because he's old and Romney because he's Mormon.
He's what? He's black. As I mentioned before, 52% of the Democratic voters were black. Obama swept this state by a huge margin. Coincidence? Well, maybe, but take a look at things. The media was crucifying any racism or bigotry in the election as evil. They were denouncing the thought that race could play a major part in the primaries -- How dare they vote against Obama over his race!
Well, folks, race did play a part in the primary. White voters likely did vote against Obama over his race. Black voters likely voted for him because of his race. I think that's bigotry.
BIGOTRY?!? Yes, folks, bigotry. A bigot is defined by Webster's as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices." Wouldn't a vote against the white man be bigotry? I think it would.
What does it mean? It means that race does play a factor, both ways. I think it's terrible that they're voting for or against someone based on the color of their skin. I am not saying that can't play a factor. What if, for instance, Jesse Jackson had been elected in one of his Presidential bids in the '80s? You can bet he had nothing on his mind but race and making a statement when he did that. Might a black candidate be prone to give more funding to groups for black kids than white kids?
But seriously, how many groups do you know of that grant scholarships or federal aid to strictly white kids? How about a NAACP, or "National Association for the Advancement of Caucasian People"? You'll never hear of it.
Really... Race can play a factor. It just shouldn't be the solo factor when voting.
-Ze Baron
---------------------------- Photo caption: "Don't worry, I have experience. I'm not a surgeon, but I was married to one for eight years."
Read more on the SC primary here. Read Webster's definition of "bigot." Read more about Jesse Jackson.
Well, it's after the Iowa caucus and shortly before the New Hampshire caucus, and things couldn't be more hectic. First off, no offense meant towards any New Hampshirians or Iowans on my list, but your states suck. Iowa and New Hampshire aren't representatives of 'common America.' Neither is California, Oregon, South Carolina, Conneticut, and a lot of other states that are important or that you'd think would be important. It's immature and straight childish the way the states are jockeying to be first in line. My only propostion for resolving this would be for everyone to host them on the same day. Or, it could be done according to their admittance to the Union. Or it could be done according to the day (not date) that they were granted statehood.
On to polls. I read some poll today done in NH about the canidates. Obama "rocketed" past Hillary and McCain was showing a promising lead. Obama had a 10 point lead on Ms. Clinton. Then I read the bottom... I think it was about 850 people surveyed. 850 people to represent a population of about 1,200,000? That just doesn't seem right. Of course, it's much more accurate than national polls. They survey, what, 1,000 people in a nation of 300,000,000 to gague public opinion? How can that even be accurate?
According to Clinton strategist Mark Penn, however, Clinton's decision to become an African-American man was thoroughly consistent with her history as a "change agent."
Elsewhere, embattled GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney unveiled a new campaign slogan, "What the Huck?!"
So, with that, ladies and gents, I leave you with an inconsiquential poll.
Link: 
Link: 
So, anyway, what with so many Hillary signs I think she's got everywhere but Philly, Johnstown, and Pittsburgh locked up. I'm actually really excited about this because it will give her more of a fighting chance, hopefully dragging the fight to June if not the convention! 
Well, the numbers are in. South Carolina choose Obama in the Democratic primaries. But who would have guessed otherwise?
