…accusing Hillary of what Obama is doing. You guys have really got to find another trick.

Obama has divided the Democratic Party to a near-fatal degree–all in a few disastrous months. His effect on race relations alone will hurt the party for years. To say nothing of the misogyny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRJHTP7gNY0

Hillary Clinton has been a divisive figure for years and she would be nothing without her association (some may wish to call it a marriage) with Bill.

If Obama would win fairly, without all of the unfair practices in the primary with the Caucus states (please read previous blogs at this site re this), and without the stealing of her delegates (Michigan), and his reward of Michigan delegates when HE withdrew his name from the ballot (just to cause problems), and the forcing of the superdelegates to vote before the convention, then yes, it may be a hard pill to swallow, but the outrage would not be there.

We might protest, but it would be due to the fact that he is so much less qualified than Clinton. Plus, all of the other baggage he will never be able to shake off, like his questionable friends, and possible dual citizenship, which may make him not eligible for POTUS in the first place. Perhaps if the true story about Obama were to come to light he might not be the “unanimous” choice.

Because of how the DNC has allowed this travesty to continue, those of us who are not blinded by his gifted oratory are doing what we can to bring out what he really is into the open. There is very little help from the MSM who apparently are not wanting true leadership, even though we have been without it for the last eight years.

Pray tell, then, exactly what “tactics” Obama and his campaign used that are so offensive to your sensibilities?

And exactly how did he “decide” that Hillary’s name should be put into nomination? From all I’ve read, it was a decision by the DNC after consultation with both Clinton and Obama.

You do make one valid point, that the superdelegates can change their mind at any time.. although I doubt we will see that happen. Obama might not be a unanimous choice, but he is apparently more unanimous a choice than Hillary. That’s what democracy is all about, the last time I checked.

http://home.att.net/~jrhsc/dick.html

Let’s see, we’re pissed about Hillary not being nominated, so to show how pissed we are, we should vote for the old white-haired dude that will certainly set back women’s rights by thirty years or so..

Not to mention get us engaged in another testosterone contest with either Russia or Iraq, take your pick.. no, wait.. why not do BOTH? After all, George W. did.

On the other hand, George W. never authored legislation, either.. maybe he shouldn’t have been President.. YA THINK?

I suppose you would prefer another four or eight years of the “Decider” making choices for you?

Before you perpetuate that old bone, why don’t you get some facts? I’ve included a link for easy reference..