To my viewers, my apologies for not having a blog post for the New Year like most everyone else did, but I had had quite a weekend, resulting in some flu and cold like symptoms for the rest of the week following New Year’s Day.  That being said, I do owe a blog on Barack Obama’s win in the Iowa caucuses and I have quite a rebuttal to two political pundits–one whom I respect and one whom my mother, in the spirit of the pastoral epistle of 1 John, is the anti-Christ.  But first, lets talk about more current events and work our way back to the Obama event of 2008.

If I could give this post a subtitle it would be “Oh, to be from New Hampsh–, oh you know what I want to say” because that’s how I’m feeling right now.  If I was living in New Hampshire right now, I’d be quite smug.  And it was evident that two of the people that were interviewed with ABC Channel 7 in Chicago were just that–smug.  And that smugness won out at Hil’ry (same as cel’ry) Clinton was declared the winner of the New Hampshire primaries.  I fail to see just how off the polls were saying that Barack Obama had anywhere from a 5-13% point lead over Hil’ry following Obama’s unprecedented win.  But, I suspect, these were the same polls that said Hil’ry should have won Iowa.  However, reports are that those in the Clinton camp also believed these poll numbers and that they were expecting a loss, even a third place loss. 

Well, something is wrong here!

Are the New Hampsh– voters that smug about their being the first primary in the country that they dare lie to reporters to spice up their dull existence as the the state that ranks 44th in land area and 46th in total area of the 50 states, and 41st in population?  Seriously, this state gets zero national press unless a moose goes on the rampage and kills someone at the local supermarket.  Many people don’t know Concord as the state capital, nor how to correctly pronounce Nashua.  Would it be far-fetched for them to get a gleam in their eye around the Januarys of years divisible by the number four in anticipation of “all eyes on them” in the national race for the president of the United States?  Shame on New Hampshire voters, who will forever be referred to as New Hampsh– by the UNN, for misleading the American public into thinking one thing and then doing another.

However, in the fairness of news, one pundit did note that polls are misleading for the main reason of cell phones.  Many young voters, such as myself, do not have a land-line phone, we carry cell phones.  And in fact pollsters do not poll cell phone numbers.  However, I hardly think this is the case to swing a 5-13% point lead to a -2% loss; for as I type this CNN is reporting 91% of the precincts with Hil’ry leading with 39% of the electorate to Barack’s 37%.  Which leads me to the issue of delegates.

Let the Uppity Negro Network be bold enough to say HIL’RY CLINTON DID NOT WIN THE NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARIES–she tied it.

The popular vote, she did win, but in the race that is determined by the number of delegate votes, Hil’ry tied with Barack Obama, meaning that if for some strange reason the Democratic National Party held their convention this week, Obama would win because between the same nine voted he garned tonight, along with his would-be cast votes from Iowa, he’d win.  So is this merely a front where we’ve been duped into thinking that Hil’ry is the “Comeback Kid #2” as Andy Shaw et. al. of ABC 7 Chicago reported tonight on the 10 o’clock news, where in fact she merely tied with Obama in the New Hampsh– primaries?

Well, let it be said that The UNN was among the first to see it as it was, and call out her win as a farce and a front.

Keep it uppity, JLL

coming up next, The UNN’s break down of Hillary’s cry and who are the political antichrists of the 2008 Presidential election.