Again, Hillary Clinton did not lead among black voters at the time of the Iowa caucus as you claim. This is irrefutable.
well maybe so.. who knows? just polls right..
the point is he did not have a hold of a monolithic black voting block merely because he was black.. the Clintons are very popular with african americans and many were voting for them
I love the way you nitpick a completely unimportant point just to argue..
My point was that Iowa - that winning Iowa- helped him consolidate the black vote around him.. prior to that it was not the case.
but of course you want to argue about some polls as evidence of what? a minor point of no consequence.. at the end of the day you would have to admit that Obama did not have a lock on SC prior to Iowa... go look up some polls of SC before Iowa or something...
argue argue argue...over nothing important
as far as the person that said that the election went on a long time.. believe me I know.. I was there at the meeting where the DNC decided how to apportion the MI and FL delegates at the end.. which sealed it for Obama.. my point wasn't that Iowa decided the election or even SC.. just that his win in Iowa set in motion a series of events that led to him being the nominee... therefore, I was arguing (for those not lost in Julian's polls) that Iowa had been very important for Obama.. this is a difference of opinion with Van Smack who seems to be arguing that Iowa and NH don't matter....didn't matter in the case of Obama apparently.. this is news to me.
Lastly, Julian made the point that Obama's speech after winning Iowa was not a big moment in US history... he/you can see it that way.. its a matter of opinion.. I think it was a big moment...some people agree..some don't...