(Drudge Headline:) OBAMAHUCKABEE!

22

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

omhuk.jpgBarack Obama was declared the winner of the Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses Thursday night, less than two hours after voting began.

With 84 percent of the precincts reporting Thursday evening, Obama had 37 percent of the vote while John Edwards had 30 percent and Hillary Clinton had 30 percent. Bill Richardson had 2 percent.

On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee had already been declared the winner after returns showed him clearing a much larger gap between him and his opponents.

With 65 percent of precincts reporting among Republicans, Huckabee had 34 percent, Mitt Romney had 25 percent and Fred Thompson had 14 percent. John McCain had 13 percent, according to the reporting.

(Fox News / You Decide ’08)

[Presidential candidates Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama are seen in this combination photo. REUTERS/Keith Bedford (L) and Lucy Nicholson.]


22 COMMENTS

  1. It ain’t over ’til it’s over.

    Leiv sarim u’melachim beYad Hashem.

    We should daven that whoever gets elected (without specifying) is good for Klal Yisroel.

    Hevei mispallel be’ad shelom hamalchus.

  2. Howard Dean came in a distant third in the 2004 caucus, then screamed like a meshugene, then he disappeared. He was favored to win intil a week before, then Kerry got 37%, JOhn Edwards 33%, and Dean somewhere in the low teens, I don’t remember how much.
    Also Rusy Davka didn’t put any ewffort in in iowa, nor much in New Hampshire, and South Carolina which are next. His efforts have beeen heavy in Florida, and the Super Duper Tuesday states. It remains to be seen if that was a good strategy.

  3. Rudy was smart enough not to fall into the hands of the media, instead he saved the bulk of the fight n energy for the real bull not those states that the media wants to dictate will decide who will lead this great nation.

  4. BUGNOT
    Howard Dean did not win in Iowa. Interesting that only 110,oo GOP voters showed up while 220,000 Democrat voters shoed up.lOOKS LIKE ITS GONNA BE A dEMOCRAT IN THE WHITE HOUSE THIS NOVEMBER

  5. 1) Iowa means just about nothing except for momentum building.

    2) Huckabee looks, to me, to be one-and-done, as his primary base of supporters is not present in NH like it is in Iowa.

    3) Giuliani skipped Iowa and is essentially skipping NH, choosing to focus on Florida and Super Tuesday states. This strategy has failed in the past but may work this time due to an increase in Super Tuesday states. Time will tell.

    4) The 3rd place winner for the Dems almost doubled the vote total of the first place winner for the Republicans.

    5) Only around 10 of caucus-eligible voters turned up in Iowa, so this really means nothing.

    6) I dislike just about all of the candidates.

  6. # 14
    Regarding 2) I do not think that the Huck will do as well in NH as he did in Iowa, since religion is less of a factor and because Romney is the local boy there.

    BUT, Huck does not have to win here anymore to carry momentom… If he places 2 or a close 3 after thundering in Iowa that is good enough for his momentom to continue. I do not think he will win super Tue, but then again everything I wrote now, was written about some other “afterthought” dude from Arkansas in 92′.

    Lastly, Both today and on Sunday the Chasidic State Rep from NH will be stumping with the Huck….

  7. I just saw the delegates pledged:

    Obama – 16
    Edwards – 15
    Clinton – 14

    To quote The Bard, if I may, this is truly “Much Ado About Nothing.”

  8. I recall meeting privately with one of the Gedolai Yisrael (on another matter) when Bill Clinton was president. The Rosh Yeshiva SHLITA, a long-time member of the Moetzes, expressed serious concern regarding the low moral character of the Clintons and its negative influence on this country.

  9. ““frontrunner” Rudy Giuliani getting a whole 2%”
    You’re leaving out info. Rudy didn’t campaign in Iowa because he says he can win Iowa over easy he needs the support of New Hampshire which is an uber liberal state.

    And Thank You (bows) just like I predicted

  10. BTW, If NH is super liberal then rudy should do great there, because he is after all, a liberal.

    He is a moderate conservative… what is needed since everyone is sick and tired of the Ultra-Rightwingers.

    …. I personally like Thompson but he doesnt have a chance.

  11. Town Crier, although as of now I am not backing Rudy, you are misrepresenting the situation.
    He was NEVER # 1 in IO or NH, he was and continues to be # 1 nationaly.

  12. yavnerd: Thompson is the most right wing consevative (besides Ron Paul, who’s really a liberatarian).
    And anyway, Bush is a moderate consevative.
    Tax Policy, right.
    Stem cell research, right. (abortion)
    Environment, center.
    Immigration, left.
    Security, hard right.
    Education, left.
    The welfare state, center left.
    By no means is he an Ultra-rightwinger.

  13. Re 30: do you mean Clinton and Obama are both favorable toward Israel? I heard Clinton speak at a major Jewish function several years ago and she did not come across as pro-Israel. And as for Obama, I can’t help but think of Oprah. I know, one’s endorsers should not be a reflection on one’s own policies, but the Oprah factor is a little different. In a recent issue of her magazine she fawned greatly over Richard Branson (that the name? Virgin Airlines et al guy from the UK) and “the Elders” (not exactly the zekeinim, lehavdil). I shudder to think that Obama’s policies could be informed by her agendas. I have no idea where Edwards stands but even if he is pro-Israel, that would not be enough to make me vote for him.

    That said, there’s always Congress to contend with. I wonder which way things will swing in 2008. That will greatly impact how the future president’s plans will be translated into reality.

  14. #3- Flatbush Bubby. I tottaly agree with you. Go rudy go!
    on the other hand
    #23 Excuse me Rudy is not a rasha, if anything hillary yimach shima- the 1 who loves arafat is.