Obama, McCain Sweep Potomac Primaries

Barack Obama and John McCain were the big winners in yesterday’s primaries of Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia.


  • Obama 61, Clinton 35%
  • McCain 55, Huckabee 30%


  • Obama 64, Clinton 35%
  • McCain 50, Huckabee 41%

Washington D.C.:

  • Obama 75, Clinton 24%
  • McCain 68, Huckabee 17%

Obama has now won 22 of the 32 states awarding delegates, claiming the lead in total delegate count by a 1270 to 1231 margin, including 1114-989 in pledged delegates. John McCain holds a 819-240 delegate lead over Huckabee. Up next on the schedule are Wisconsin and Hawaii for next Tuesday the 19th.

7 Responses

  1. I am disappointed (although not surprised) to see that the author of this blog supports freedom of speech and media (such as the internet) only when it is in a manner which is not critical of him or his writings. In truth, this blog is nothing more than a poorly written regurgitation of plagiarized news stories which are available on the front pages of any major newspapers in the country. The author, who obviously has been brainwashed by leftist propaganda, then proceeds to inject the philosophies of mainstream political hacks operating at such liberal news sources as The Nation or Air America. The author then passes the opinions of these left-wing pundits off as his own.

    I attempted to speak out against this individual’s lack of integrity once before, but found that my comments had been censored. I can only hope that the author will soon understand that freedom of speech is not limited to those who agree with you or your plagiarized statements.

  2. Ingopheed, could you please point out a section of this blog that claims to be completely independent thought? I doubt much of what is published by the AP is completely independent thought. I think the author is attempting to give his opinion on a number of topics that he feels are important. some of these topics are mainstream, and some of them aren’t.

    Maybe it would be more productive if you countered his arguments instead of insulting his integrity.

  3. smack –

    Thank you for proving my point that nothing on this blog constitutes an independent thought. I simply ask the author to have enough integrity to give credit to those whom he has lifted information from. Case and point, the article regarding Bechtel’s operation of Bolivia’s water supply. The author clearly took the information from the documentary “The Corporation,” as the article contains all of the same fallacies which were stated in the film (eg. Bechtel was actually a member of a conglomerate which operated the water supply, not the sole operating entity). At no point did the author credit the documentary for the article, nor did he actually conduct any research to determine the validity of the information.

    In addition, I would like to add that it is very difficult to counter the author’s argument when that author is actively censoring my posts. I offered comments for a previous article and my remarks were removed. The author, when confronted with the truth of his own plagiarism, felt it necessary to omit my comments rather than offer any rebuttal of his own. I felt the readers should be aware of this.

  4. Ingopheed,

    If nothing on this site constitutes an independent thought, why are you reading it? There are thousands of other blogs that would not screen your comments.

    As for researching the documentaries / articles that were read, I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who examines every bit of information before bringing a topic up merely for debate.

    Perhaps when you feel like you would like to add a comment for debate, you should not insult the author and/or readers. The author is providing a place for people to openly discuss different topics and share ideas… not to belittle each other while making a point.

    I think you forgot to cite where you got your correct information about Bechtel.

  5. iris –


    Keep in mind this information was obtained by conducting about six seconds of actual research, which I believe may be a worthwhile endeavor for the author of this blog to engage in.

    Also, you make an excellent point, there are many other information-exchanging sites which would not censor the postings of its readers. Therefore, I will not be viewing this site any longer.

    I merely felt that it was my duty to inform the readership of this blog of how quickly the author was to remove posts which did not agree with his views or meet his standards of content. This does not appear to be appropriate behavior for an individual who claims to value open discourse and free press/media. Perhaps this type of censorship would be a beneficial topic of discussion on this blog.

  6. Ingo,

    Your first comment was the first I had ever bothered deleting on this blog. I apologize for that, but my reasons were that the comment only attacked me personally rather than offering a point of view or any constructive criticism of the material. I have never deleted any other comment…you will find several other critical comments from readers like ‘smack’ and ‘John Miller’.

    I started this blog for my family members, in the hopes that they would feel obliged to learn more about world events. I write and post other people’s stories of interest that I would like my family to discuss with me. I do regret that lately, in the past month or so, I have only been bothering to make updates about presidential primary news. There are many stories of higher news value that I had intended to write about, but primary news has been kept up primarily for my friends overseas.

    I also apologize for being “brainwashed by leftist propaganda.” I need to keep in mind that these ‘leftists’ all have an agenda. Then again, perhaps its not so crazy since their agenda seems to be focused on social justice and human rights.

    Have you read much Noam Chomsky?

  7. Ingopheed,

    I feel you missed my point entirely. You criticized the author for not giving credit where it was due and you made a “factual” statement without citing your source… a bit hypocritical. =/

    Also, from past conversations, the author of this blog is actually very open to differing opinions. I know that I personally differ from his views religiously and he has always been respectful and even inquisitive about my views.

    I’m not sure if you’ll read this – but the best way to have someone hear your words isn’t to attack them (I will clarify that I do not personally feel attacked in any way). I know that when I share my views, I give reasons why I feel the way I do rather than demeaning a person for believing what they choose to believe. After all, who is to say who is right and who is wrong? Perhaps in the future you may find better luck sharing your views if you focus more on debating ideas rather than choosing to prove that you are right.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: