RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Are You Going to Drink the Koolaid Or Believe Your Own “Lying Eyes”?

Yesterday, we published an interview with Marc Rubin, co-founder of The Denver Group. We discussed the offshoot watchdog organization that he and Prof. Heidi Li Feldman have formed: Democrats For Principle Before Party, designed with the goal of taking back the Democratic Party from corrupt elements that pushed Senator Obama’s nomination. Marc’s response regarding the way the Convention played out provoked a reaction from quite a few “unbelievers” among us, shall we say. Here’s what Marc said that got them so hopping mad:

The convention was a total fraud. The roll call vote was rigged, and every Democratic rule and procedure was violated in order to do it and they did it in broad daylight right in front of the watchful eyes of the news media who have the powers of observation of a drunken sailor on a Saturday night. They just let the corruption happen without comment. Some of the more egregiously blind were Mike Barnicle, Chris Matthews and of course that Olbermann guy who still thinks this is sports.

I then asked Marc what he would want to explain about the roll call vote or outcome for those not as intimately involved in the situation who still thought Obama won the nomination “fair and square”:

Well there is no accounting for people’s ignorance and refusal to think for themselves, but according to Democratic Party rules it was totally rigged. Rule 6, I believe, states clearly that pledged delegates have an obligation to vote according to the voters who elected them based on the primaries.

Just as one example, Clinton ‘landslided’ Obama in the New Jersey primary winning many more elected pledged delegates than Obama. As you saw during the roll call vote all 130 pledged delegates “voted” for Obama. And no one blinked an eye. And as everyone knows super delegates were going to decide this because Obama didn’t have the 2/3 needed in pledged delegates. They never were given a chance to vote. The last unofficial count according to Politico.com prior to the roll call vote showed among super delegates, 271 for Obama, 268 for Clinton and 160 undecided. If the roll call vote was honest, Obama would have most likely lost.

Ah, now to those “unbelievers.” Not that we wish to give oxygen to foolishness, but we actually had responders saying we had ‘no proof’ of Marc’s allegations. Sigh. Exhausting, isn’t it? Were they watching the same Convention we were watching? So here, for everyone’s edification is some proof.

For sane persons who have no intention of denying the obvious, we include raw data for you to show those who, as Marc eloquently put it, refuse to believe their own “lying eyes”.

Here first are The Green Papers’ results of the Democratic Primary:

WARNING – THESE TALLIES WILL SEND ALL HILLARY SUPPORTERS THROUGH THE ROOF WONDERING HOW IN THE HELL ANYONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND NOMINATED
THE ENDLESSLY FLIP-FLOPPING AND UNQUALIFIED BARACK OBAMA:

The Final Tally On The Popular Vote:
Hillary Clinton 17,857,446 — 48.04%
Barack Obama 17,584,649 — 47.31%

The Final Pledged Delegate Count
Hillary Clinton 1,730.5 — 39.17%
Barack Obama 1,747.5 — 39.55%

So basically she won the popular vote and was behind him by 17 pledged delegates. Wow. What a slam dunk!! Uh, who did they nominate again?

And let me reiterate for the one-thousandth time:

1. Hillary won all the big states, save Obama’s home state of Illinois.

2. She won all the battleground states that usually decide the elections in November, like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, West Virginia to name a few…

3. She had the electoral map in her pocket.

4. She won the popular vote.

5. She won the majority of the Democratic base – not the “Republicans for a Day” – but voters who actually intended to vote for the Democratic Nominee in November – as opposed to people voting for Obama from the Republican side who were just trying to get the stronger candidate (uh, that would be Hillary) out of the race. [This is noted with all due respect to those Republicans who actually wished to vote for a Democrat in the Fall.]

6. No matter what shenanigans the DNC tried to pull by denying Florida and Michigan their votes in the primary – last time I looked, their votes do count in November. Hillary won those votes resoundingly. So it sort of would have been a good idea not to poop on them when we need them to vote for us in the General Election. Just a thought…

Who did Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Harry Reid and Donna Brazile push to nominate again?

Delegates were strong armed not to vote for the candidate they were actually elected to support on the first ballot, based on the votes of millions of Americans. The final delegate tally from the first ballot was 3,188.5 for Obama; 1,010.5 for Clinton. Take another look at the REAL numbers above and see if that seems legal to you???

What was the primary for anyway? Why did we make all those phone calls, send in all that money to both candidates, canvass, rally, vote? Why did we vote? If over 700 delegates could be taken away from her on the first ballot with no one blinking an eye?

Why didn’t Donna Brazile just send everybody the memo ahead of time?

“Look, no matter how much she wins or where she wins, we are going to gift this to him. So get over it.”

I would have appreciated the honesty, if nothing else.

Since this race was essentially a tie, except that Hillary’s votes were won in states Democrats can actually win in November – not states like Idaho, Wyoming, Kansas and Mississippi – and she didn’t use any caucus fraud to win either, unlike someone else we could name – it sort of doesn’t make any sense that Hillary would not be our Presidential nominee.

Yes, Marc is correct. The DNC turned the nominating process into a crooked joke.

Perhaps that is why the media, Obama’s surrogates and the DNC are falling all over themselves to declare that it must be racism that is keeping him getting out in front in this contest. Does the expression CYA (uh, cover your ass) ring a bell??? Uh, is that really why we don’t want to support the DNC’s crooked contest pushing for a most unqualified, dissembling candidate: Racism?

Oh yeah, that must be it…I’m so proud all my time on the internet has taught me this expression. ROFLMAO. For the laymen out there: rolling on floor, laughing my ass off. (Emphasis mine.)

I cannot tell anyone else what to do, but today, I am donating some dough to Democrats for Principles Before Party because I’d like to see the DNC’s feet get held to the fire.

And the fire can’t be hot enough to suit me.

If you wish to help or find out more, here is their information: The Denver Group / Democrats for Principle Before Party

Please also tune in to Bud White’s excellent original interview with Heidi Li Feldman and Marc Rubin of The Denver Group on NoQ Radio.

Trackback URL

RSS Feed for This Post261 Comments »

Comment by Kal | 2008-09-22 14:39:39

Hi, sorry, I’m just completely flipping out. The good news is I never thought I would see the numbers. The bad news is that it’s much worse than I had dared think.

Hillary!!!

Hillary 2012!!

PUMA!!!

Comment by richasis | 2008-09-22 14:41:53

Drinking Kool-Aid… GOT “ORANGE”? :)

Comment by richasis | 2008-09-22 14:44:51

take that, Obamatrons…

Comment by Morgan | 2008-09-22 15:29:03

That’s tough and I wish it had been different. On my side (R) I’m always complaining that our time to stand on principle and shun pragmatism is during the primary (I wanted Romney or Giuliani).

It has got to be far more than doubly-frustrating when it doesn’t come out your way AND it should have rightfully.

Let’s get McCain in there, hopefully he’ll be a total, total curmudgeon on spending and clean some crap up, and we can all get it on in a real race in 2012. Maybe Rudy v Hillary. Something with 2 really qualified, really patriotic, really serious candidates.

Comment by trixta | 2008-09-22 16:58:31

Sarah Palin is more qualified than OPrecious.

Comment by jwrjr | 2008-09-22 17:30:22

It is not like that would be difficult.

Comment by POdVet | 2008-09-22 19:16:55

My cat is more qualified than Obama. Her job is to catch field mice, and she does it! She has caught over 20 field mice since I rescued her. Can you Obamatons tell me how many meetings your Obamessiah has had with the committee it is JOB to lead?

 
 
 
 

Comment by Zelda Crunch | 2008-09-22 22:04:54

But they’re not taking it. They know it was rigged – they rigged it!

It’s foolish of people to think Hillary or anyone can ‘take back’ the party in four years. That party is today a party of crooks. The US will finally have to advance beyond the two party system. And only then can this party of ‘democrats’ be relegated to history and oblivion as it must.

 
 
 

Comment by Chicago Joe | 2008-09-22 14:44:14

I know. Just when you think life has to go on, you get wind of something like this which reveals the major rip-off we knew was happening. God, I wish McCain had the XXX to call Obama out on this, and I wish someone with cred had the nerve to call a press conference and to denounce this. Rubin and Li have to break through somehow not as fringe Hillary fanatics, but as legitimate whistle-blowers. It is depressing that there is almost no one left in the media that one can immediately identify as the person to go to with this information.

The MSM sucks.

Comment by Creature of Chicago | 2008-09-22 15:00:29

I thought The Denver Group had the best chance of getting the message out with their well conceived and produced ads. So I donated to them, hoping for a legitimate roll call. I was stunned when I listened to the bogus live roll call on satellite radio.

I don’t think the bogus roll call would even have happened without the efforts of The Denver Group.

Comment by Woman Voter | 2008-09-22 15:32:27

The endless efforts were just for NOT! They had the help of Pelosi and all the Dem elite and had this orchestrated for some time now. The big question is WHO are the beneficiaries of all of this? Why was Clinton locked out?

I think it is commendable that the Denver Group gave it a good try and that at the very least they knew we were all not going along silently.

Comment by Carol | 2008-09-22 15:55:47

The big question is WHO are the beneficiaries of all of this? Why was Clinton locked out?

The beneficiaries of this is the NeoLibs because the Gang of Pelosi, Inc. know they can get BO to do what they want. They locked Hillary out because the NeoLibs knew they could not get Hillary to rubberstamp their agendas.

I need another tranquilizer after reading this article. The rage is starting all over again with what the Gang of Pelosi, Inc. did to her.

Comment by Chicago Joe | 2008-09-22 16:08:34

Look at Obie now. He is just waiting, uh, er, for his marching orders from the higher ups. All in the name of not creating havoc on Wall Street (no, that’s not happening already.)

 

Comment by M. Simon | 2008-09-22 17:35:51

Neo-Libs is too kind.

Communists is more accurate.

Zero approximately – “I sought out Marxist professors”.

 

Comment by FranSC | 2008-09-22 23:29:57

Not only did Pelosi and Co as well as Howard Dean and the DNC know Hillary would NOT be a puppet for them, I am convinced that Nancy Pelosi, who has a well-publicized dislike of other women, simply did not want another woman jumping ahead of her. Nancy Pelosi is a well connected ‘good ol’ boy’ whose friends and confidants are men.

Unfortunately, Pelosi is one of those successful, self-centered women who does not take other women with her, is not a mentor for other women because they are afraid these women will take their jobs. The Pelosis of the world are surely not going to help another woman achieve success beyond her own, and to whom she might be made to feel subservient.

Comment by Jules | 2008-09-24 14:02:02

“Nancy Pelosi, who has a well-publicized dislike of other women…”

The feeling is F***ING MUTUAL!

 
 
 

Comment by trixta | 2008-09-22 17:02:27

We must keep following the paper trail, as they say. With a few exceptions, I will NOT vote for Dems in my home state (CA), since it “Passsed” during the roll call vote, which would have otherwise given 444 delegates to HRC.

Comment by lusitania | 2008-09-23 00:12:16

This election cycle I will be voting only for those “down ticket” dems who openly supported Hillary before and up to June 7th, 2008. Or stayed neutral. Anyone who endorsed Obama prior to June 7th has demonstrated such poor judgement that they could not possibly deserve my vote. I urge everyone else to do the same.

Hillary in 2012

 

Comment by FranSC | 2008-09-23 00:16:17

It was obvious when Obama was instructed to accept the roll call that he had been assured by Pelosi and Dean that it would not be a threat to the nomination. They had made sure of that before agreeing to it and if all else failed, they got Hillary’s pledge to stop it well before any trends could be established that were not in O’s favor.

It was a complete sham designed to hoodwink and placate Hillary’s supporters, which failed. All they had to do was contact the state party chairs and instruct them to make sure their Hillary delegates voted for Obama in the name of ‘unity’ or else.

Remember, these Obama supporters were well-schooled in how to take over caucus meetings as well as all the county/state conventions. In my state which was a primary state, the county and state conventions were railroaded by the Obama supporters, while the Hillary supporters stood by dumbfounded. That is why there were thousands of complaints filed that have yet to be dealt with. The caucuses AND local conventions were organized on-line by MoveOn.Org and the CA venture capitalist company secured for BO by Nancy Pelosi. When you hear about BO’s ‘excellent’ campaign, this is what they are talking about. His ‘ground operation’ is primarily located on-line.

Barack Obama has had NOTHING to do with running his campaign. His strategy has been Dean’s 50-State disaster that is crumbling.

 
 

Comment by Obama's lies | 2008-09-22 17:04:07

fyi… “just for NAUGHT”… :)

 
 
 

Comment by bethtopaz | 2008-09-22 16:00:57

It is depressing that there is almost no one left in the media that one can immediately identify as the person to go to with this information.

The MSM sucks.

*****************************

What about Glen Beck?

 

Comment by Chiten | 2008-09-22 17:28:54

WHY did Hillary not fight this????? WHY!!!!!
Damnit Hillary, why did you not fight this??? I am 110% behind Hillary as a candidate and very angry that she is not the nominee, but WHY DID SHE NOT FIGHT???? She had the standing to fight and didn’t and I want to know WHY!
What did they say to her, what did they do to her, how did they threaten her (or god forbid bribe or blackmail her). Why did she allow them to roll over her and not stand to fight it?? That’s not the Hillary Clinton we support and voted for and would vote for again. What is it that caused her to allow this to happen? She COULD have demanded a proper role call, she COULD have demanded that every single delegate vote and adhere to the rules, but she didn’t.
I guess it could have ended her career, I realize the “democratic party” could have “blackballed” her or something, but it makes no sense that she didn’t fight harder and I want to know WHY.
I can see how she would feel “if people aren’t going to help me push, why bother pushing, they must not want me”, ok, I can see that, but is that what happened? I just want the truth, straight from Hillary, as to WHY she didn’t fight.

Comment by Elizabeth | 2008-09-22 22:11:15

I remember reading that Hillary would not fight at the convention for a roll call vote unless she knew she had the votes. Not sure where I read that because it seems like a lifetime ago now.

I sent a check to the Denver Group today after reading your interview this weekend. And I always like reading Marc Rubin’s blog Tom Paine.

I like the direction they are going in for it’s exactly what I had hoped for.

For any here who hasn’t checked out their site …Well I hope you do.

 

Comment by lusitania | 2008-09-23 00:14:27

A little part of me feels betrayed too. But I have so much respect for the woman that I have to give her the benefit of the doubt.

 

Comment by FranSC | 2008-09-23 00:40:52

There was nothing Hillary or Bill could do – they were almost destroyed by their own party – the DNC, the Pelosi leadership, the black leadership led by SC Rep. James Clyburn and Donna Brazile who kept up the race-baiting from Iowa to Montana, the Washington belt insiders (democrats like Salley Quinn and Carl Bernstein) who shockingly not only turned their backs on the Clintons’, but became pundits who did everything possible to belittle both Clintons and defeat Hillary, with the media piled on top of them as well. How could anyone fight this while it was going on? Who could they have gone to? The public would have considered it sour grapes and whining. It will take citizens groups like the Denver Group to do anything with this. Even the courts refuse to get involved in party squabbles as we have seen. It is a very depressing state of affairs that sadly most people know nothing about.

 
 
 

Comment by Clinton Fan | 2008-09-22 16:11:51

Yep–what you said.

The numbers are a slap in the face to anyone, like ME, for example, who has worked their big fat ass off for YEARS for the goddamned party.

It’s bad enough that they lied, cheated, and STOLE MY CANDIDATE FROM ME (and the rest of the nation)….but they did it CRAVENLY, smugly, selfishly. How DARE THEY?

When I think about how, over the years, in local and national campaigns, I schlepped, volunteering, phoning, walking through neighborhoods hanging shit on doorknobs–and in some SHITTY WEATHER, too, driving people to the polls….oh, and DONATING.

Donating, donating AND DONATING…and these motherplunking bass turds have the brass to do me like THIS???

I am ENRAGED. FUCK THEM.

We need new party leadership–throw those BUMS OUT on their self-satified asses.

The sooner, the better.

Comment by timepassages | 2008-09-22 17:22:51

They called me last night for a donation.. HA! I told them I was a dem voting for McCain, and I am giving him my donation!

 
 

Comment by derridog | 2008-09-22 18:12:12

Who publishes the Green Papers site? How much credibility do they have? I’d love to send this to people, but I don’t know anything about this site. Are they neutral? During the primary, finding agreement on this information was virtually impossible. Every major news organization and blog had a different count? Is this some final count that is totally reliable?

If so, it’s horrible! How I miss Hillary when we have this economic situation that neither of the other candidates has much of a clue about how to fix!

 
 

Comment by c4every | 2008-09-22 14:43:08

damn the obamabots, unclefuckers.

Comment by Maverick | 2008-09-22 15:06:09

No wonder they had to ‘gift’ Obama uncommitted delegates for a state that he wasn’t even on the ballot. Otherwise he would have not been the presumed nominee.

 
 

Comment by Bill Dupray | 2008-09-22 14:44:40

Wanna Hear The Sound of Palin-Smear Blowback?

While the campaigns go about their business of calling each other lying bags of dog excrement, and the left wing media (who actually are lying bags of dog excrement) go about trying to smear Sarah Palin, her daughters, her husband, Alaska, mayors, small towns, bitter clingers, and anyone who disagrees with Barack Obama on principle; A word of caution.

The voters are watching.

Listen to the frustrated rage of this woman at McCain’s townhall.

http://patriotroom.com/?p=2277

Comment by Seattle Moss | 2008-09-22 14:53:25

Great video,
yes the backlash has begun!!

The “One” has no clothes

 

Comment by vinnie | 2008-09-22 15:38:15

That’s what I’m talkin’ about! I say, if the situation presents itself, start calling the media on the carpet!

I’m sickened to see the facts in this post about Hill’s delegate numbers and the roll call. It’s like reliving a nightmare.

 

Comment by tzada | 2008-09-22 18:13:54

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080922200422.n3br0vct&show_article=1

John McCain’s White House campaign Monday lashed out at the media and declared the venerable New York Times was “150 percent” behind Democratic hopeful Barack Obama.
McCain senior strategist Steve Schmidt rebuked journalists he said had failed in their duty to submit Obama to intense scrutiny and accused news organizations of hounding McCain’s running mate Sarah Palin.
“Whatever the New York Times once was, it is today not by any standard a journalistic organization,” said Schmidt on a conference call with reporters.
“It is a pro-Obama advocacy organization that every day attacks the McCain campaign, attacks Senator McCain, attacks Governor Palin, and excuses Senator Obama.
“This is an organization that is completely, totally, 150 percent in the tank for the Democratic candidate, which is their prerogative to be, but let’s not be dishonest and call it something other than what it is.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13733.html
McCain aide: NYT not legit news source

a McCain campaign senior adviser, declared on a conference call with reporters Monday that The New York Times is “not … a journalistic organization.”
His lengthy broadside, prompted by an article Monday documenting ties between the campaign and lobbying for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, was the latest in a series of grievances with the Gray Lady that that aides to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) have aired publicly.

 
 

Comment by Chicago Joe | 2008-09-22 14:46:11

PS Sounds just like home.

 

Comment by Seattle Moss | 2008-09-22 14:48:18

Speaking of lying eyes..
Over at Blogs for McCain
there is a Newsmax video about ABC and their unethical behavior in editing out Sarah Palin’s answers and even changing certain answers to make her look bad.
I don’t know how to provide the link. maybe someone can show me someday considering I read 30+ hours a week of editorials and commentaries.

Comment by Kevin | 2008-09-22 14:59:50

Highlight the address in the address bar
Press controll c
that will copy it
come back here
open a comment
press control V
that will paste it

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122209290438362805.html

highlight the pasted address
hit the link button above
that should do it

Comment by Seattle Moss | 2008-09-22 15:04:00

Comment by Seattle Moss | 2008-09-22 15:07:13

Comment by McHope | 2008-09-22 15:32:32

Seattle,
Thanks for the link. I knew ABC edited the interview, but not to that extent. They should be forced to apologize.
Imagine the outrage had they done this to Obama.

Comment by Seattle Moss | 2008-09-22 16:47:53

I’m just so damn disappointed with the MSM.
I will have nothing to do with them anymore!!

 
 
 
 
 

Comment by Helper | 2008-09-22 15:03:48

Seattle Moss:

Copy and paste.

Copy from the browser url line and paste in your message.

 

Comment by tzada | 2008-09-22 18:16:53

Cut and paste the address (It is out of the article in a seperate bar at the top) When you get it in here, highlight it and then click on the link. Clicking the link activates it.

 
 

Comment by athy | 2008-09-22 14:50:32

Ani-Excellent article.

These videos reinforce what Marc Rubin says above in your article.

View the video’s released on August 9th 2008 by the Sam J
Ervin Jr, former chairman of Watergate commission, library and museum in Morgantown NC. According to producers, the DNC (with the support of the MSM) has perpetuated a crime and fraud against the American voters by claiming Obama as the presumptive nominee.

Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lPCunsrI1Q
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-Khsg8iKjU

Superdelegates votes can not count until convention

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXpz8AJk8TM
*VERY IMPORTANT PART: Why Obama is not the presumptive nominee
- these videos are very educational, interesting, and well-researched and documented. People are indeed repeating history. What is happening in 2008 has happened several times in the past. Educate your fellow voters. Forward these links to others.

http://www.lynettelong.com/caucusfraud/

This is excellent site too…

http://wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/video/index.htm
Obama & Vote Theft

*****************************

Another example of delegates being strong=armed by Sen Obama campaign team…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/02/AR2008030202434_pf.html
Washington Post,”For Black Superdelegates, Pressure to Back Obama”, by Shailagh Murray, 3/3/08; AO1

Comment by Maverick | 2008-09-22 15:30:04

Does anyone have the URL of the documentary doe by Murphy? It’s called “The audacity of…”
I don’t know the rest of the name. I need to send it to someone.

Comment by Carolyn Mann | 2008-09-22 17:43:50

You should be able to find a short trailer on YouTube by searching “The Audacity of Democracy.” We saw a longer version of the film, which is still in progress, in Denver. It was posted on The Confluence on Sept. 17 and is about 20 minutes long. I think the post was called “Wednesday: People Like Us.” It’s still in the archives if you page through the blog.

Here’s the link (I think):

http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/page/3/

 
 
 

Comment by Buck O'Fama | 2008-09-22 14:51:17

Ripoff! This is the way they held elections in Stalin’s USSR and Hitler’s Germany. Never thought it could happen here and it was the DEMORATS, the party of equality, liberty, freedom, blah, blah, BLAH, that did it! What a bunch of liars.

Comment by Herr Obamann | 2008-09-22 15:14:40

The convention was a total fraud

Dumkopfs. You veel regret your insolent vays ven vee take over. Vee haf vays of chaninging your minds at our Kamp Obamas.

 

Comment by Ferd McBerfle | 2008-09-22 15:17:25

You’re right and great moniker. Buck O’Fama, indeed.

Comment by Herr Obamann | 2008-09-22 15:29:19

Das ist stupit. Not as stupit as Howard Dean, but close.

 
 
 

Comment by steel magnolia | 2008-09-22 14:52:24

And this is the main reason I left my party – unethical, thuggish and unlawful behavior – right out in the open and NOT ONE PERSON IN CONGRESS HAD THE COURAGE TO STAND UP AND SPEAK OUT! They all caved and put money and power before country. It’s disgusting and pathetic how weak-willed they are – no one willing to speak truth to power in that party!

Comment by Creature of Chicago | 2008-09-22 15:02:53

This is why it’s hilarious when 0trolls come on here and call Hillary supporters “Republican” – like it’s an insult. After what the DNC did, being called a Republican is a compliment.

 
 

Comment by hilldemgoneindie | 2008-09-22 14:53:43

well, i’m done flipping out over the biggest, most blatant hijack of democracy in history.

THE one person who could have finished this sham once and for all fell on her sword – not for us, the people who gave money they could ill afford, gave time, energy, heart and soul for their candidate AND their country, but for her own career – and let it happen. and THEN… turned around and began campaigning for the crook and is STILL telling us we MUST vote for the ONE. i’m sick of politics. i don’t give a good goddamn why she’s doing what she’s doing, but as far as i’m concerned, the very fact that hillary IS playing the game is enough for me. if she was/is being threatened, she needed to stand up and tell the world. she needed to take whatever they were going to dish out to her. blackmail? then i don’t want her as my president anyway. threats of physical violence against her or her loved ones? all the more reason to get it in the open. threatening her future career? of a millionaire? of someone of her stature in the world? GIVE. ME. A. BREAK.

i loved hillary so much… i am deeply sad this happened, but i am more sad that she did not stand up for her country and OUR votes.

i’m going to support and vote for people who do put their country first and wouldn’t stand by and fret about their stinkin’ careers or legacies or what effin’ ever instead of doing the right thing.

i just hope more people see and “get” ani’s most EXCELLENT piece and finally flip out. i’ll be linking the snot out of it and sharing it with all my former obamabot “friends.” perhaps this is the antidote they need to come out of their koolaid stupor.

Comment by Paul3triple | 2008-09-22 15:06:52

i agree. It troubles me as well. I gave over 200 dollars to Hillary. It is a fantasy to thin she is being forced or has a gun to her head. That is plain bullshit.
Some poeple here just refuse to accept the truth.
I like hillary still and probably will vote for her in 2012. I have to see though. She promised things to her voters,volunteers,supporters, and so on that she did not do.
I feel your pain and many others do as well.
I am pretty sure any second we will be accused as trolls for not hoping on hope.
That is for obama supporters. I believe in reality.

I am happy you are voting McCain!!!
We must all work hard to defeat obama. I will. I know that.

Comment by Ani | 2008-09-22 15:15:50

No one could possibly know the pressure that woman was under. Please don’t say she did not have a gun to her head. That is horribly naive.

You are forgetting the way politics works. I have never seen anyone more courageous.

Please review what really happened and reflect if you really think having the entire corrupt party leadership, the media and Obama and his money machine running against you — if you think it would have made any sense to stand alone and fight on at the Convention — when even your own NY delegation was applying pressure and moving against you — and threatening your friends’ congressional seats — not to mention the idiot Charlie Rangel leading the parade.

No noe could accomplish what you are asking without significant help. Obviously 18 million voters did not matter.

I will not tolerate ANYONE acting as though they did and don’t matter to her.

She just stood up and came out with a new economic policy for this latest crisis. She’s ding it to help us — not for glory.

Or hadn’t you noticed?

She will always have my gratitude and support.

Comment by Mercedes | 2008-09-22 16:15:19

I don’t really blame Hillary for doing what she is doing. But I find the whole scenario extremely disturbing. But none of it makes any sense at all.

Both she and President Clinton have said what good friends she and McCain are. Every thinking person knows what a sleaze Obama is. So I have to assume that she is campaigning for the Democratic platform and not the person Obama. If threats do not explain her actions, then I hope she did some wheeling and dealing to get some leverage if Obama wins.

But considering her friendship with McCain, I am not sure she or the agenda she supports really have much advantage with an Obama presidency.

I’ve read more than a half a dozen good factual books on what happened on 9/11, so I am inclined to see top level politics in that light.

As the senator from NY, Hillary is in a unique position to know what really happened and as the former first lady, she is in a unique position to know what we all are up against if there is any truth to the conclusions reached by people like David Ray Griffin.

McCain wrote the forward to the so-called Popular Mechanics debunking of so-called 9/11 theories. Hillary wore orange when she talked about how important it is to keep going when the hounds are at bay. Orange has been the 9/11 protest color. That is the connection I make.

Somebody is very afraid of Hillary and what she could do with the executive powers of the president and what she knows. That is what I believe.

Obama will do what he is told by the worms and vermin who have been wielding the power for the last eight years at least….unless there is an opening for someone like Hillary to pull the rug out from under them all.

Hillary, may the force be with you.

Comment by just me | 2008-09-22 17:22:12

it must of been hard every day to come out as she did as wonderful as she looked to go against that corrupt machine….

Think of a bad day at work or when your child comes home hurt remember the feeling that goes through you…

or the worry that your scrimping to pay that bill that comes in you have over looked we all know that sinking feeling.

These are feelings you can relate to and how you felt when you watched and saw what Hillary was up against.

Try carrying that on your back for 19months…
Guess you could all do it with a smile on your face when your heart is heavy knowing what the other side is pulling….

I admire Hillary and always will. When you look in her eyes when she is out on the stump she does not look the same… Her spirit is deflated in a sense…

and when you get the email
“Hillary sent Me”

Delete it and move along to do what you have resigned yourself to do this election cycle.

Don’t carry the crap the Obama team inflicted upon us all. Go forward with strength and determination to work hard in whichever way you have decided for yourself!

DO NOT ALLOW THE OBAMA MACHINE TO STOP YOU MOVING FROWARD FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR COUNTRY!

STAND PROUD AND TALL!! DO NOT ALLOW THAT MAN TO HINDER YOUR STRENGTH AT THIS IMPORTANT TIME IN USA HISTORY!!

 
 

Comment by Annein PA | 2008-09-22 21:05:58

Why did she run for 17 painful and exhausting months when the MSM and her party where calling for her to quit? They wanted a smooth ride
for Oblah to continue on without competition, but she didn’t oblige them.

That’s my question. If she worked and took so much abuse, willingly faked out all her supporters, was humiliated over and over by the O campaign for what? For some glory? What glory? To just roll over and support O? I don’t belive it. No, there’s got to be more to this.

 

Comment by Snickers | 2008-09-23 04:32:56

Thank you, Ani, for your post. This has been a horrible election cycle, and just makes it more imperative for us to vote against this Fraud.

 
 

Comment by destardi | 2008-09-22 15:16:32

Hillary is holding herself to her word.

THREE WORDS: THIS IS POLITICS

LIke it or not, for Hillary to survive, she has to play ball.

THAT’S what she’s doing, and THAT’S how she’ll win the Presidency.

Comment by Ferd McBerfle | 2008-09-22 16:23:25

Agreed. I’ve been arguing that point for literally days. Sisyphus had an easier go of it.

 

Comment by csuzeq | 2008-09-22 16:33:10

I do believe that she would tell all now if not for the fact that the Obama candidacy is always on shaky ground. Anytime between now and Nov. 4th we could need a new nominee and she is staying electable people. If she denounces the party and Obama got indicted and it is up to the DNC and democrat Governors to decide the new nominee she has to have proved party loyalty. Will they be loyal to her? I have no idea. I just know if Obama was say killed or indicted, and yes, yes, how dare I say it, but we all know either is very possible, she can step in at a moments notice and has been campaigning for herself even though it seems like it is for Obama. It is not for him, but she can’t very well stop and go on vacation!

 

Comment by FranSC | 2008-09-23 22:09:09

destardi and Ani, you are correct – about “just politics”, “playing ball”, and the fact Hillary does care about her supporters, what we did and sacrificed for her and continue to do.

Unfortunately, there is plenty of evidence that has become like the political bible that tells politicians how they must conduct themselves in the wake of “losing” or in this case when selected as the “loser”. Plenty of them ended not only opportunities for future races, but are remembered for their angry, post-election words and behavior. It is apparently vital to be regarded as a team player, especially in the face of defeat.

I just hope they are documenting everything so that someday we will know the real truth. Bill Clinton said a few weeks back that he would talk about the primary in January after the election, suggesting to me that BO would not win. I can’t see President Clinton doing that should Obama pull off winning the Nov 4 election.

 
 
 
 

Comment by samb | 2008-09-22 14:54:36

Comment by missE | 2008-09-22 15:53:00

Politico left out the best part of course.

Schmidt also said:

“His relationships with Tony Rezko, the convicted felon, who was so intimately involved with him on everything from the purchase of his house to the aid that Obama secured for Rezko and other Rezko allies who were essentially slumlords in Chicago,” Schmidt said. “So far the relationship between Obama and Rezko and a number of these slumlords in Chicago has been very underscrutinized.”

http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/14529

 

Comment by samb | 2008-09-22 15:55:13

Comment by Firefly | 2008-09-22 16:19:29

Of course they’re gonna say that – they gotta have each others’ backs because they’re all the same media monster.

The criticism by McCain’s camp is not just aimed at the NYT – it’s talking truth about ALL the media – and ya gotta know the media can’t let that stand – because it’s all true.

It’s like the way CNN has those “political expert panels” on to “analyze” whether their coverage has been

1. biased toward obama
2. sexist

Answer: “We’ve looked at those questions, as they apply to the media in general and CNN in particular, and we all agree. No, of course there is NO bias and NO sexism! And, if you thought there was a problem, it’s because you just weren’t paying attention – so sit down now and enjoy the show.” End of analysis.

“The most trusted name in news”

 
 

Comment by Firefly | 2008-09-22 16:05:41

Those were great comments by Schmidt – and so true. Of course, it’s not only the NYT, it’s ALL of the media – but I guess ya gotta take ‘em down one at a time…

 
 

Comment by Jackie | 2008-09-22 14:55:09

Let us help Governor Palin withstand this nonsense.

Let us help them win. ‘

In the process let us back Hillary in the Senate so common sense can prevail.

 

Comment by dixie | 2008-09-22 14:58:18

Losing without a shot being fired. McCain/Palin had better get some backups and go after this socialist basterd with both barrels blazing. I’m still having a hard time believing American people are voting for a creep who turned his back on the flag when the national anthem was played.

Comment by Seattle Moss | 2008-09-22 15:15:20

Obama also refused to stand and clap the success of our troops at the state of the union.

Obama is so hateful of America that he can’t even fly old glory.
Just his round piece of crap emblem

 
 

Comment by Cindy | 2008-09-22 14:59:23

Many thanks for all of this indisputable information!

 

Comment by HC | 2008-09-22 15:01:29

I just want to say thanks for the blogging.

I was one of the first people in my “circle” that decided Obama was a ridiculous candidate for president, and I felt very alone.

I have never been particularly politically active but to me he was simply unacceptable for POTUS for many reasons that have nothign to do with identity politics.

The self-censorship of the press started to really make me uncomfortable, and in looking around for actual information I found justsaynodeal which led me here, and the rest is history.

Since the MSM is not doing its job, what you guys do is even more important than ever. Thanks again.

 

Comment by Astra14 | 2008-09-22 15:04:07

Any one notice we are missing trolls here? Shouldn’t they be reading this and commenting? Or do you think they’re shellshocked?

Comment by Creature of Chicago | 2008-09-22 15:25:59

Troll silence is only an indication that they are busily communicating with the mothership for applicable talking points.

Sooner or later one will show up appropriately prepped.

Comment by Astra14 | 2008-09-22 15:31:31

Yes, I guess it’s too much to hope that they’d learn to think on their own. (sigh)

 
 
 

Comment by MPR | 2008-09-22 15:05:01

Ani,
Good to see the facts back up our knowledge. We all know Hillary won.
I am considered a foreign policy NEOCON. I also put Country first.

In Feb I watched what the MSM did to Senator Clinton and got concerned. I found NQ where many open viewpoints were shared.

I’m like many conservatives on foreign policy. I learned Hillary could and would pick up the 3am call.

I learned to respect her grit.

I learned to actually admire her.

I was shocked. I was not alone.

It would have been an electoral landslide for Hillary because she had people like me willing to respect her.

I believed she would have been better than Bill. I know she is tougher than him.

Well, it did not happen. The Democratic party allowed itself to be jobbed. Ok.

But Obama? Holy Shit! What a disgrace!

God Help Us!

Comment by csuzeq | 2008-09-22 16:43:08

That’s what is so frustrating and so misunderstood by the average Obama supporter (not the radicals). Those of us who chose Hillary found Obama to be a joke and unelectable and dangerous. That didn’t change if you took Hillary away because it wasn’t all about Hillary. If everyone could believe that this was a fair contest and she lost fairly and Obama was not a snake, he was actually comparable, we’d all have gone over to his side after the fact. The truth is that we decided against him and feel strongly about it. No one can change that because Obama is what he is. I cannot believe the dems threw this away when it was so important.

In my mind the election was over on 8/28 with that phoney (like Obama) roll call and I have moved on just waiting to cast the ballot. Victory to McCain.

And who can feel sorry for the democrat party? They were warned. Personally, I could never even tell you how many letters, emails and phone calls I made to tell how they were blowing it. They wanted to lose instead of fix it. No one should feel sorry. Let’s just clean house!

 

Comment by WMCB | 2008-09-22 18:21:11

MPR, I’m one of those Democrats who believe in a strong foreign policy. When Hill in that debate was asked about Iran launching a nuke at Israel, she didn’t hesitate – her eyes flashed and she said, “We’d obliterate them.”

The fauxgressives were all wetting their panties over it. OMG OMG OMG she is a warmonger! Nope, she is STRONG. I wanted to stand up and cheer.

That moment among many caused some of my Republican family to feel that they had maybe misjudged her over the years. Would they have voted for her? Possibly not. But they would have been okay with a Hillary presidency, just as I am now okay with a McCain one, and ma voting for him.

Obama? Give me a break. He’ll sell anyone down the river, whether this country, its allies, or any demographic he no longer has a use for.

Comment by just me | 2008-09-22 18:52:56

he sold his soul to the devil a long time ago and brought all those people he calls neighborhood associates with him.

Obama chronicales on Fox tonight
How close is O to rezko ayres etc

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3091185&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423741,00.html

25 part series
========================================

McCain wins crowd size battle……finally
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/22/mccain-wins-crowd-size-battlefinally/
In what could be a first, it appears the McCain campaign has finally won a head-to-head with the Obama campaign on crowd size and won.

While a joint McCain-Palin rally at the Resch Center in Green Bay last Thursday night drew about 11,000 supporters, an Obama rally at the same venue this afternoon drew only 6,000 attendees according to the Illinois Democrat’s campaign. While it is an anecdotal statistic given that the rallies came at different times of day, it still is an indication of the enthusiasm the Alaska Governor has brought to the GOP ticket.

60,000 this weekend in FL

 
 
 

Comment by dixie | 2008-09-22 15:09:21

Is the majority of the democratic senate socialists? Or is it they just simply don’t give a damn so long as they can say they are the power brokers? What in the hell has happened to those elected people? Along with GW Bush we also got the worst democratic congress in America’s history. And I thought this shit would never happen in my lifetime. I wonder if McCain and Palin really know just how much we are depending on them?

 

Comment by Hillary or Bust | 2008-09-22 15:09:29

I’m glad to see Democrats Before Principle or Party, but if anyone from that organization is reading this, I’d like to suggest that more basic information be put up on the website. It does not state what the organization is about. I assume I know, but it’d be good to have it laid out in simple terms.

Comment by dixie | 2008-09-22 15:14:54

God, after what we have witnessed in this election cycle I don’t think I will ever assume anything again. Obama controls so many things in this election I am suspicious of everything.

 
 

Comment by kinthenorthwest | 2008-09-22 15:10:20

So why may I ask did we even have a primary.

Comment by Judy L. NC | 2008-09-22 16:16:33

And while you’re at it, ask why we bothered with a convention and styrofoam Greek columns.

 

Comment by Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy | 2008-09-22 18:11:23

That is what I would like to know – and awesome piece, Ani!

Seriously – if the DNC had the fix in for Obama to get the selection, which it appears that they did from actions of the RBC and the Convention, did they not perpetrate FRAUD on the country? MANY of us gave money to Clinton, not to mention time, so I cannot help but wonder if this doesn’t constitute fraud. If this is all documented, and the Convention Roll Call was improper (illegal), why wouldn’t it be? Given that we were acting in good faith that this was a democratically run primary, and acted accordingly, if it is demonstrable that we were being had, couldn’t we do one big, huge class-action suit against the DNC?

Just wondering (and you see how I am channeling my anger right this minute)! :-)

 

Comment by Annie Oakley | 2008-09-22 18:48:12

One of the major accomplishments of the media’s absurd marathon “primary” is that everyone forgot who the president is and what a disaster he has been for this country.

 
 

Comment by MPR | 2008-09-22 15:11:40

Dixie,
We need to clean out Congress…both corrupt parties.

We need term limits.

The last 43 days will be tough but I know the innate goodness and gut check common sense of the American People will prevail.

I want no American President who has terrorist Friends…..you know…the guy down the street…

haha.

Comment by dixie | 2008-09-22 15:25:04

MPR I am not afraid of very much of anything , but this Obama crap has me a little worried. I thought GW Bush was bad, but when it comes to bad GW can’t hold a light for Obama.

 

Comment by Astra14 | 2008-09-22 15:34:44

The Presidency has term limits. Obviously it’s time for term limits for Congress!!!

 

Comment by bethtopaz | 2008-09-22 16:09:26

Dixie,
We need to clean out Congress…both corrupt parties.

We need term limits.

The last 43 days will be tough but I know the innate goodness and gut check common sense of the American People will prevail.

I want no American President who has terrorist Friends…..you know…the guy down the street…

haha.
*************
I agree. Term limits. These politicians make a career out of running for and having these cush jobs with a lifetime of benefits.

I, for one, am sick of it. They do whatever they want with no thought of consequence, because they have the taxpayers to fall back on.

We have to reform this system – Democrat or Republican or Independent.

I am a Republican, and one thing I admire greatly about Palin is that she stood up to the corruption in our party.

That’s the kind of courage and integrity I love seeing in my representatives.

Comment by bethtopaz | 2008-09-22 16:10:00

Country before Party – every time!

 

Comment by Jaycephus | 2008-09-22 23:40:16

bethtopaz: ditto

If there was one single thing I would pick from the 1994 Contract with America to get passed, it would be term limits.

 
 

Comment by Kara | 2008-09-22 16:29:41

in states where term limits apply, these candidates just play musical chairs – the same group running for different offices…it doesn’t really work in the way you’d think, unfortunately. an informed citizenry is the best tool for term limits and based on this crappy year, I have no hope – oops. used the h word. sorry…

 
 

Comment by Darryl | 2008-09-22 15:17:47

This is one of the MAIN reasons I am not supporting the democrats this year. I mean, in america, the fundamental right of voting was denied to everyone whom voted in our primary.

It would be like if we had a national election and it came down to one state and one of the party members said, hey lets take another state and give it to Obama, even though he didn’t win, so that he will get enough, then the last state won’t matter!

DUH!

But this is the scariest part of the whole thing. Over 50% of the democratic base thought it was Okay what they did.

Think about that for a second.

There is a vast number of people in this country whom think its okay to annoint someone into political positions for WHATEVER reason. Thats not democratic at all no matter how you slice it.

If Obama gets elected this November, this will send a clear signal to media pundants and Elected Officials that they don’t need to hold fair election in order to pass their own agendas. They don’t have to listen to voters. They just need about 25% to 40% of people to believe that their cause is just. After that, they can enforce anything they want on the american voter.

Comment by Astra14 | 2008-09-22 15:45:03

That is a terrifying realization. And I agree, there is something wrong when half the base threw democracy out the door. Where and when did it become meaningless? That’s what I want to know. I didn’t have a clue something was wrong until they kept trying to get Hillary to drop out when she was winning key states! It never made sense to me.

The you add the Obama “cult followers” and their hate – and I want to know when it became popular to be like the Hitler Youth Movement? It blows my mind and Thank God for No Quarter. It keeps me sane while the rest of the world seems to be losing it!

 

Comment by Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy | 2008-09-22 18:31:22

Darryl, that has been my concern EXACTLY. If they are allowed to get away with it this time, as brazen as this was, what is going to happen the next time?

And HOW can half of Dems be okay with rigging an election?? What happened to being the part of social justice, the one for the people?

Many in my family are shocked and appalled at my complete unwillingness to support Obama. Not only do I deeply dislike him, but the MAIN thing is that I will not condone, with my vote, unethical, immoral activity. I get the whole song and dance abt Roe v. Wade, women’s rights (see Ani’s good piece on THAT), SCOTUS, blah, blah, blah. I just tell them if they were really concerned abt all of those things, they would have voted for Clinton. I mean, at some point, the DNC would just not have been able to stand up to all of us if the numbers were overwhelmingly in Clinton’s favor (and would have been except for the rigged caucuses, abt which the DNC did NOTHING).

All in all, the DNC has exposed itself to be exceedingly corrupt – still hard for me to accept, but it is clearly true…We cannot allow them to get away with this.

Oh, and Ani – I hear ya abt Hillary. Given the levels to which they have stooped this year, there is absolutely NO telling what they said to Hillary…

 
 

Comment by Larse12 | 2008-09-22 15:20:55

I am a Democrat voting Republican straight down the line this year. I cannot stand Obama or the DNC.
They are corrupt. I am from North Dakota and am so disappointed in Dorgan, Conrad and Pomeroy. Will not vote for any of them again. They were so in the tank for Obama at the Democrat conventioned they drooled all over Obama as they introduced him. To Hillary they never said anything nice or positive. They sat there like dunces. Thank God Gov.Sinner was there to introduce Hillary with such gracefulness and dignity.
Shame on Dorgan, Conrad and Pomeroy. I want the Democratic party to go under. I am that ashamed of them.

 

Comment by Patrick Walker | 2008-09-22 15:24:15

I don’t want to be a thread-crapper, especially with the following missive that was found in an earlier article, but it’s about time to get ahead of the curve and stand against the racism excuse that is looming.

Strike now at those who want to say you will not vote for Obama because he is black (he’s not black, he’s an Oreo, see below).

Here are good, serious questions, most of which can be Googled, while others are subjective but they all point a rather disturbing trend for The One(tm).

I don’t care if you take credit. Sign your name. I really don’t care; this is just too important. Just spread the word and remember, the SDs can “overturn” the nomination all the way through election day.

____

Do you contest the fact that Obama was instrumental in granting more imperial powers for George W. Bush when he supported the evisceration of FISA? Was Obama a willing participant in granting what Bush desired but should never have received? Is that what you want a Democrat to do? Enable Republican crimes?

Did he or did he not flipflop on his promise and grant retroactive telecom immunity for those involved in the warrantless wiretapping of Americans in contravention of the United States Constitution? Again, do we want a Democrat that will almost magically legitimize corporate crime?

Do you contest that Barack Obama voted for Cheney’s Oil Bill in 2005?

Did he or did he not say he could no more disown his pastor (Rev. Wright) than he could his own grandmother? His grandmother, who raised him and paid for his private school education while growing up in Hawaii (where are these food stamps?), should run for cover because Obama disowned his pastor just a few short weeks after making his statement. Take note “typical white woman”, with Obama, you never know who will be unceremoniously flushed next.

Do you contest that Barack Obama supports the stupid idea of Faith Based Initiatives, a position Bush-haters rightfully mocked just a few years ago when Bush first introducted them? Even when organizations are proven to be hostile to civil rights, it doesn’t seem to faze Obama’s FBI pandering which is rather odd for a former self-professed “civil rights lawyer”. Giving taxpayer money to organizations that may be hostile to women, LGBT, and other minority groups seems rather odd for someone who uses the word “progressive” like a club.

Did he or did he not water down nuclear regulations in return for campaign contributions from Excelon? Did he or did he not receive over $200,000 from Excelon?

Does he, or does he not support capital punishment even if it is widely known that it is unjustly applied to those of colour? It is striking that Obama is now supportive of the death penalty.

Did he or did he not buy out superdelegates even if state or district voters clearly indicated their preference Hillary at the voting polls?

Did he or did he not provide earmarks to ADM for soybean research and accepted use of their corporate jet on two occasions (and then publicly back corn-based ethanol, which ADM is a big producer of)?

In the age of ballooning fiscal deficits and bailouts, is it even a wise idea to put forward the idea of tax cuts to anyone? In this regard, the best McCain and Obama can do is bicker over minor detail. McCain’s policy stands can be summed in three words: wrong, wrong and wrong. The problem is that the alternative with Obama is little different.

Did he or did he not add University of Chicago hospitals to the list of earmarks in the following year they granted his wife a 160% pay increase? Given the money involved, it seems their investment in the wife of their Senator may have paid off handsomely.

Continuing on the topic of those popular Congressional earmarks, didn’t Obama vote down reallocating those funds towards Katrina relief? In effect, did he not vote in favour of maintaining funding for the “Bridge to Nowhere” over the need for reconstruction monies for New Orleans and the Gulf Coast?

During his parttime job as an Illinois legislator, was he not the sole vote against a sex crimes bill which he believed would somehow be viewed as unconstitutional, yet still is on the books uncontested even today? Maybe he voted “present” for this? It’s hard to tell since he voted that way over 100 times in his Illinois state career.

Do you contest that Barack Obama maintained Bush’s silly little idea of a winnable “War on Terror”? Their only difference is that Obama’s central front is slightly in the eastward direction of Iraq and could include Afghanistan’s neighbor, the nuclear-armed Pakistan. With Bush, McCain or Obama, it’s still bombs-a-flyin’! Rand corporation recently published an article that showed that in the entire history of modern terrorism, of the over 600 groups, none have EVER been found defeated militarily. I thought Obama was smart and well-versed? Instead, he’s pandering and pushing militarism in many extremely similar to George W. Bush.

Did he or did he not run for ever-higher office on five separate occasions in the last eleven years? He is not a legislator. He’s a professional campaigner. His experience of running a national campaign does not, I repeat, does not offer up executive experience, nor does a flash tour of Europe.

Did he or his campaign criticize Hillary Clinton for being a member of the Walmart board then suddenly hire the biggest (and silliest) proponent of Walmart to head his economics team? Jason Furman says that Walmart is a boon to the American worker because of its low prices, all while neglecting to mention that Walmart is one of the principle causes of why Americans are getting poorer in the first place.

Did he or did he not get caught issuing a campaign-wide email describing how to distort Bill Clinton’s “fairy tale” comment to create the appearance of the Clintons being racists in order to achieve a much needed South Carolinian victory?

Did he or did he not limp across the finish line during the final days of the primary? How could this be an indication of party strength or support? He lost every single major battle and most (if not all) of the CLOSED Democratic primaries. The word closed here is extremely important because Obama encouraged Republicans to be “a Democrat for a day” in the open primaries he actually managed to win. Do you believe these “Republicans for a Day” are conceivably going to vote for Obama in November? I thought so.

Do you contest that Barack Obama has proposed troop expansion of the US military by at least another 90,000 exactly how Bush Secretary of Defense has proposed?

Did he or did he not say that no option was off the table vis-a-vis Iran at his AIPAC speech near the midpoint of 2008? The exact quote from beginning to end is this: “I’ll do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything.” Forgive me if I think this sounds like GOP posturing … because it is. Talk of diplomacy often disappears depending on the crowd he speaks before which begs the question of just how genuine Obama really is.

On the issue of Jerusalem, did he not undermine years of American posturing in saying that Jerusalem is indivisable and part of Israel? His quote before the same AIPAC crowd follows: “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” It was reported that career State department officials reeled in anger at just how badly Obama screwed up relations in the region as a whole with this single statement. This is an instance of Obama’s pandering threatening the hard work done by many hard-working people trying to keep international order. Something, would you not agree, that Bush has a reputation for undoing by himself? Obama should heed his own advice and remember “words matter.”

Did he, or his campaign, browbeat Blair Hull to unseal his divorce records to expose still unproven allegations of spousal abuse, then do the same to his GOP opponent in order to secure his own election to the US Senate? All signs indicate yes to this question. This campaign also is also Obama’s first genuinely contested election and a real opponent, not fellow Oreo Alan Keyes, the New Maryland resident and GOP “crazy” parachuted in by the party to take Mr. Ryan’s place for that US Senate race. Yes, I said it. Obama is an Oreo. Obama is acting like the same old white politician and his position on the death penalty seals the deal and proves it. Black on the outside, white on the inside.

Do you contest that the very same corporations that gave to Bush in 2000 and 2004 are giving money to Barack Obama? Do not begin with the “bundling” silliness; we are all aware that it’s a distinction without a difference.

Did he or did he not require the financial services of the now convicted Chicago slumlord Tony Rezko to help the Obama family purchase their dream mansion in Chicago?

Is Obama lying when he said that Franklin Raines, disgraced Fannie Mae executive, never gave mortgage and economic advice to him when the Washington Post has written on two occasions that Raines actually has? To a large extent, the Democratic line about the lack of deregulation is disingenuous. Much of the subprime mess evolved inside the regulatory regime and twisted in ways that even a reasonable person would expect but to simply blame Bush for a thirty-year Republican and Democrat legacy really amounts to flagrant deception.

Is Obama’s famous “Say on Pay” bill more than window dressing? A non-binding vote by shareholders on executive pay is pointless. I guess actually forcing corporations into being responsible citizens (or even following the law) isn’t an Obama forte. Eerily GOP-like, don’t you think? Self-regulation of industry has been a disaster which makes his anti-McCain disingenuous to the point of being flagrant lies.

Did he or did he not “blow” over $100M in the failed Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which Obama ran for years and ended up showing next to nothing for its efforts? I guess Bush isn’t the only one who can squander a hundred million of someone else’s money.

Do you contest that former Bush “Pioneers” are not working for the Obama campaign?

Has Obama adopted this idea of “merit pay” for teachers? A long-standing Republican desire in their attempts to destroy the public education system. Obama seems to adopt the silliest of GOP positions. Illegal wiretapping, faith-based initiatives, rampant militarism, etc.

Did he or did he not put forward a market-based solution for the market-based failure that is American healthcare? Market solutions are a staple of the Right and has been shown to be a stellar failures in virtually all instances. To hear a progressive even remotely suggesting that the solution is to be found with some tinkering of regulation but ultimately leaving it to the market screams volumes at just how vigilant his administration would actually be.

Did he or did he not indicate in writing that he would consult with John McCain before backing out of his commitment for public financing?

Did he or did he not deliberately miss the “Stop Excessive Speculation Act” which would have taken some measures against price manipulations but Obama did manage to find the time to show up and vote Bush even more imperial wiretapping powers?

Did he or his surrogates accuse his opponents of being out-of-touch, yet he turns around and drops his kids off at a private school using a five SUV motorcade? It is hard to claim your opponent is out-of-touch when you go before multimillionaires in San Francisco and lambast middle America for clinging and then repeat the same by having Barbara Streisand singing songs before his $28500 a plate fundraiser in Hollywood … or when Obama lambasts the financial sector for the subprime mess just before attending a fundraiser organized by one of these instituions (more on this later).

Did Obama not say that Democrats should lay off criticism of Bush Supreme Court appointees like Chief Justice Roberts? If we wanted to hear a hatchet man from the White House defending Bush’s flawed court appointments, we’d haved tuned into Arlen Specter or Rick Santorum, not a supposed Democrat.

Did he or did he not support the party nominated anti-War Senate candidate Ned Lamont? We know for a fact that Obama did NOT endorse Ned Lamont but chose instead to endorse the biggest pro-War Democrat in the US Senate, Joe Lieberman. Did Obama appoint to his VP spot someone who was anti-war? Hardly, he nominated five-deferrment Chickenhaw Joe Biden, who was instrumental in 2002 in stacking testimony before his foreign relations committee to prevent critics of military action against Iraq, notably Brent Scowcroft and Scott Ritter. This ensured that the Iraq War Resolution which was voted on by the entire Senate was loose enough and skeptics were kept off the Congressional Record.

Did he or did he not vote for Bush’s “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act”? This is a bit of a trick question. Like a broken clock, Bush can be right sometimes.

Did he or did he not vote for the “Class Action Fairness Act” in 2005 which undermined the ability of average Americans from seeking compensation from corporate malfeasance? This greatly illustrates his Bush-like pro-corporate fetish which, when you also recall other instances, like his silly “Say on Pay”, Cheney’s Oil Bill and the recent retroactive telco immunity, he’s GOP as much as McCain or Bush. Possibly more and I hope we never have to find out.

Did he or did he not have a huge press conference about the rampant problems in the financial industry and then have a $1000 a plate dinner hosted by … Credit Suisse in their offices last March, one of the worst subprime lenders of this whole mess?

Did he or did he not say that had he been Senator during the Iraq War Resolution debate he could possibly have voted for this resolution? Between this, his lack of support for Ned Lamont, and giving Bush all the war money he asks for, it is clearly evident that Obama is not the anti-War candidate he had positioned himself when unseating Hillary Clinton.

From the above, I have a hard time buying into the fear mongering about McCain or Palin. I don’t like either and I would hesistate crossing the street to put out the flames if they were on fire. Looking at Obama’s history, primarily through his behaviour regarding corporate behaviour, and even without the Bill Ayers connections, he fills me with fear. Not hope. Remember your Greek history, what was the last thing that came out of the box that Pandora openned? After, disease, war, death, the final thing to emerge was hope. Any progressive worth his or her weight will tell you that hope is the enemy of meaningful progress. Hope is a call to passivity and the status quo.

I was a very fervent Dennis Kucinch supporter who probably would have just fallen into disinterest with regards to the Democratic Presidential nominee. However, when the pack was thinned to the point where it ended up being between Clinton and Obama the result was disturbing. You had a right-winger and then … you had a Clinton. Hillary wasn’t my first, second or even third choice but I have to say that Obama made me realize just how much this woman is an American treasure.

When people say there is a difference between McCain and Obama I seriously have to ask “in the sphere of everyday matters, where does Obama differ?”

___

Comment by Patrick Walker | 2008-09-22 15:29:20

I just remembered another:

Why did Obama refused to vote for a 30% interest rate cap on credit cards, thereby allowing these companies to routinely jack their rates up for Americans already saddled by debt and declining wages?

Comment by snosandy | 2008-09-22 17:33:32

Excellent summary of the Obama campaign.

 
 

Comment by dixie | 2008-09-22 15:43:19

The difference is like day and night. Just one example:
(1)McCain spent x (5-5 1/2)number of years locked in a cage as a prisoner of war because he believed it was in the interest of his country. He refused early release from that POW cage because he thought it was in the best interest of a fellow American and American principles.

(2) Obama spent 20 years in an anti American church.

There is your difference in everyday matters. One is totally American -the other is something else.

Comment by bethtopaz | 2008-09-22 16:11:54

Great 527 ad!

Comment by Duras | 2008-09-22 17:07:03

I agree completely. In a nutshell, this gets directly to the character and the differing worldviews of the two candidates and asks voters to decide which one they’d rather have in the White House.

 
 

Comment by foxyladi14 | 2008-09-22 17:43:48

plus and this is very important in this equasion..mac had no choice in the matter.. obama did!!!!!

 
 

Comment by tzada | 2008-09-22 18:34:41

This is one way we may be able to call attention to things.

A Call For Hearings Into Senator Barack Obama’s Violation Of The Logan Act
Write a Letter to Congress : Letters Sent So Far
We demand that Congress open hearings on Senator Barack Obama’s potential violations of the Logan Act. On at least two separate occasions, as documented by NBC and The New York Post, Senator Barack Obama has attempted to negotiate a delay to U.S. negotiations with Iraq until after the elections. We feel this is an egregious abuse of his position and in violation of the Logan Act, which by historical judicial interpretation prevents anyone, including members of Congress, from interfering with U.S. negotiations.

If you believe Obama violated the Logan act go to this link. It’s so easy to voice your concern.

http://www.rallycongress.com/americansentinel/1223/a-call-for-hearings-into-senator-barack-obamas-violation-of-the-logan-act/

Note: use the “send for free” option.

Please cut and paste this into your email and send it on.

 
 

Comment by Nikki | 2008-09-22 15:25:32

Is anyone listening to the Micheal Biasden radio show? He is saying that Sarah Palin should not be quailfied to run for VP because she transfered college 5 times, and that she did’nt go to law school.

Comment by Darryl | 2008-09-22 15:27:40

In other words she is not part of a scamming elite class of people who like to manipulate laws.

Comment by Patrick Walker | 2008-09-22 15:31:10

There was a time when my parents were discussing politics when someone said they would not vote for a particular candidate because he/she did not have a university education.

To that, one of my parents responded, “well, it’s the people with degrees that have made this mess. Expect them to be able to clean it up?”

Comment by Darryl | 2008-09-22 15:37:29

college education is different than a specific degree. Lawyers are bred to be scum.

Comment by Creature of Chicago | 2008-09-22 16:31:19

If nothing else, they know how to find the LOOPHOLES.

 
 
 
 

Comment by WynterSkye | 2008-09-22 16:07:24

Is it too late to impeach Jimmy Carter? He didn’t go to law school either, he had a degree in nuclear engineering. It was that degree that influenced my vote for Carter believing he would be highly supportive of funding technology. He was probably the most anti-technology president in recent memory and did the most to kill the nuclear power industry in this country.

Ronald Reagan also only had a BA degree, and love him or hate him, he had a firm grasp on the levers of presidential powers.

The Constitution does not require any specific educational requirement to become President. Even a haberdasher from Missouri can become a great president. Jefferson put faith in the people to self govern rejecting the concept of ruling elites as prevails to this day in Europe.

 
 

Comment by Kelvin Hearts PUMAs | 2008-09-22 15:31:29

This is the number that you PUMA’s need to come to terms with: The Final Pledged Delegate Count
Hillary Clinton 1,730.5 — 39.17%
Barack Obama 1,747.5 — 39.55%
The rules are that the candidates with the most pledged and super-delegates win the primary. The numbers above state Obama won 17 more pledged delegates than Hillary did. The super delegates placed him at the magic 2110 number to claim victory. The popular vote only means the she won the larger states. Obama won more states. He took the caucuses seriously and won them. Hillary showed up and thought that was enough. She put in some work near the end, but by then it was too late. Don’t hate Obama for trying to win, blame Hillary for and her campaign for underestimating him.

Comment by Darryl | 2008-09-22 15:38:44

If this was true, why the show? Why mess with those numbers during the convention?

ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR ME?

If it was a done deal, why did they need the manipulation.

You are a complete retard.

 

Comment by Leisa | 2008-09-22 15:39:22

Dear Kevin,

As a person who personally witnessed and filed complaints about caucus fraud in my state, you loose that argument with me. He embodies the idea that the means justify the end, even stooping to encouraging unethical and undemocratic behavior by his supporters.

Yeah, that caucus fraud caught us all off guard, who would have thought that a wonderful candidate like Obama, one who promised new politics in Washington, was really promising Chicago style politics. We just never saw that coming…

So, that old tired meme your are trying to recycle will not work, because it is a lie.

Comment by Darryl | 2008-09-22 15:41:52

You missing the obvious logical flaw in his statement.

He claims that by all accounts, Obama won the convention hands down.

If that is the case there would have been no need for manipulation at the convention.

That is the flaw in his argument that he can not explain. He points to delegate counts that NEVER happened cause they where never allow to vote that way during convention.

Comment by Ferd McBerfle | 2008-09-22 15:45:04

Kelvin, being as ass-maggot Obamabothead, cannot respond to direct queries due to faulty programming.

 

Comment by cocky whacko | 2008-09-22 15:46:18

Everyone knew what the result was going to be, so they decided to look unified. One of the points of the convention is to help Democrats win the election.

Comment by Ferd McBerfle | 2008-09-22 15:55:39

so they decided to look unified.

Appearances aren’t everything, whacko pud-puller. Another way to win is to have a good message and an honest candidate. You have neither. Style never trumps substance, asshat.

Now isn’t it time for you to do as your moniker implies at the circle-jerk starting just about not in obamabotland?

 

Comment by Disgusted | 2008-09-22 15:55:58

By picking Obama? One of the most important factors of SD is to override the picking of a candidate who can’t win. Looks like the DNC dropped the ball.

Comment by cocky whacko | 2008-09-22 16:18:56

Obama is ahead in the polls and the betting markets have him as a favorite. He was also running even with Clinton in the head to head with McCain during the primary.

Comment by Ferd McBerfle | 2008-09-22 16:27:26

Like you, though, he is a loser. Leave now but be sure to come back in November so we can all have a big laugh at your expense, trolling pud-puller.

 

Comment by Darryl | 2008-09-22 16:33:28

Thats now, that was then. You are distracting.

 
 

Comment by Wisewoman | 2008-09-22 18:05:02

What also makes me so angry is that:
1. With the pledged delegate count being almost tied (17 vote difference) and with no one having the required 2200 plus votes required for the nomination the superdelegates had to decide the outcome.

2. Hillary won the large states that had far more superdelegates than Obama’s many “red caucaus states”. If the superdelegates had voted the way their states voted, Hillary would have won outright.
At every turn in that process she got screwed.

 
 

Comment by WMCB | 2008-09-22 18:26:28

The problem is, when you attempt to “look unified” by breaking your own rules and throwing the votes of the voters in the trash, you DO NOT get unity.

This has not happened before. Jesse Jackson got EVERY ONE of the delegates he won on the floor, as did Kennedy.

It wasn’t about “unity”, it was about not making the messiah look bad by him squeaking out a win (if he won). It was about telling the woman to sit down and STFU, not have her achievement recognized in a REAL roll call, so as to spare the massive ego of the man.

 
 
 

Comment by Kevin | 2008-09-22 16:00:07

Hi,
Don’t even try arguing with this nitwit. Waste of time and effort.

 

Comment by Kal | 2008-09-22 17:43:37

You lose me too.

 
 

Comment by Ferd McBerfle | 2008-09-22 15:42:14

Stay on topic and answer the charges in this blog, Celsius, you ass-maggot obarfbagbot.

 

Comment by HC | 2008-09-22 15:45:21

Yes, because the Idaho Caucus should really determine the democratic nominee.

$50 to McCain for trolling.

Trollfund = $1250.

Comment by cocky whacko | 2008-09-22 16:30:04

The rules are already set up so that states that support Democrats in the general election get more delegates. Should Democrats in Idaho not count at all? Should we just hold the vote in Ohio and nominate whoever wins there?

Comment by Jaycephus | 2008-09-22 23:55:17

Shouldn’t you guys have a real convention instead of a show? I’d have never have known how close it was if I hadn’t found this site. I just assumed Obama won fair and square. Apparently that is highly debatable, but no one in the media is debating it. Can Republicans start calling you hypocritical for calling Bush ’selected’?

 
 
 

Comment by Disgusted | 2008-09-22 15:48:49

Shouldn’t a real roll call vote been had then Kelvin? Isn’t that really too close to call? Neither reached 2110 and the SD votes don’t count till the convention. Why the convention strong arm?

Comment by foxyladi14 | 2008-09-22 17:48:41

hillary is my hero
hillary won she should be the nominee she won she was skrd and didn/t even get kissed

 
 

Comment by Rob in Chicago | 2008-09-22 17:29:29

Kelvin:

All you have shown is that either you didn’t read the article above, you didn’t understand the article above, or you are trying to distract from the truth revealed in the article above. NO SALE, Kelvin!

Comment by jwrjr | 2008-09-22 17:40:54

It is trying to distract from the truth, as always.

 
 

Comment by jd4hill | 2008-09-22 17:54:18

They never even allowed the super delegates to VOTE — wake up!!!!

Those numbers were pledged delegates only — and she won ALL the states we need to win in November — not meaningless caucus/red states we could never carry anyway.

Are you kdiding? Is that the best you can do.

Remember the last time they nominated the guy who did not win the popular vote — McGovern.

Remember how that turned out?

 
 

Comment by Darryl | 2008-09-22 15:36:14

Obama is the classic definition of a “bourgeois liberalist”. He is a very rich guy working for the rich interest in this county and is using his “African American” heritage to get young people and Black Americans to vote for him.

Bush was the same. He used Religion and good ole country boy themes to adhere to the poor voters in this country.

He is a smoke screen. I pray for those dumb asses who are gonna wake up in a year and realize that Obama aint gonna help with da bills.

In every country that this happened in–this movement of what I call “fake” liberalism–the end result was the same, economic collaspe and/or revolution.

Comment by dixie | 2008-09-22 15:58:15

I am a life long democrat. Never voted republican in my life (which is a long time to some- like 50 years). I am voting for McCain and Palin and for a republican congress this time around. Revolution? I don’t think it is out of the question, and that is what I thought would one day be a reality — because the democratic party has always flirted with socialism–,but not in my lifetime? You just never know.

 
 

Comment by Vince P | 2008-09-22 15:37:04

Pelosi is putting a oil drilling ban in the Bailout bill

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28646

Can you believe this bitch?

Breaking News: Pelosi ‘No Energy’ Bill Part of House Draft CR by Jed Babbin
09/22/2008

House Democrats are bypassing renewal of the offshore oil drilling ban by including the entire Pelosi “drill nothing” energy bill in a draft of a Continuing Resolution. HUMAN EVENTS obtained a copy of the most recent House draft CR this morning.

The Pelosi bill, HR 6899, fails to open more than a miniscule part of the available offshore drilling areas and — even worse — it establishes permanent bans on development of most other domestic energy sources (natural gas, oil shale, etc.) and does nothing to develop nuclear power. It passed the House earlier this month and is now languishing in the Senate as a separate measure.

As one member of Congress said last week, it’s got more incentives for bicycle riding than for nuclear power.

[snip]

Comment by Vince P | 2008-09-22 15:38:08

oops I was copy and pasting from an email I wrote someone. I didn’t mean to call her the B-word here.

Comment by Astra14 | 2008-09-22 15:55:12

That’s okay. The news just firmly cemented my decision between voting downticket dems or independents. I’ll be voting for the independents for Congress and McCain for President.

MCCAIN/PALIN 08
HILLARY 2012

 

Comment by standard | 2008-09-22 17:07:45

Offshore drilling should be banned.
Why are you for fucking up our oceans even more than they already are?

Comment by OhioMary | 2008-09-22 22:03:29

What are you thinking? Russia is ready to drill off of Alaska and China is working on a deal with Cuba to drill off of Florida – Do you want these countries to drill off our shores – Don’t you think we will take more precautions against a spill than they will?

 

Comment by Jaycephus | 2008-09-23 00:07:38

Simple facts for the simple-minded:

More oil is leaking out of the ground and fouling beaches than has ever leaked from offshore drilling. There are actually environmentalists who would like some offshore drilling to relieve oil pressure that is causing this problem.

Of course, when you think about it, this kind of oil leaking has been going on for as long as oil has been in the ground. So Mother Nature is the real Polluter!

Given that fact, let’s help out the Earth and relieve it of it’s oil problem.

Besides, it’s not like oil isn’t biodegradable. It is in fact a ‘bio’ fuel. We just don’t want a full super-tanker of the stuff dumped on a wildlife habitat, if it can be avoided.

 
 
 

Comment by dixie | 2008-09-22 16:03:24

Pelosi and that entire nest of snakes are trying their damnedest to drive the economy into the ground–In hopes it will help install their socialist candidate in the oval office.

 

Comment by Kevin | 2008-09-22 16:03:56

The “oil drilling” bill is about neither. It is a campaign year gimmick to appear as if they are doing something while accomplishing nothing

 
 

Comment by Ferd McBerfle | 2008-09-22 15:38:35

It’s just a damn shame we can’t put the DNC in stocks and pillories until after the 2012 election cycle.

 

Comment by cocky whacko | 2008-09-22 15:39:18

There are two major problems with your post. First, the facts are wrong, and even if they were correct no sane person could conclude the election was stolen. According to Realclearpolitics the final pledged delegate count was 1766.5 for Obama and 1639.5 for Clinton. He also had gained the lead in super delegates. Even if some super delegates had not committed, the writing was on the wall and Obama had enough votes to win. Moreover, the only way you can claim Hillary had more votes is if you count Michigan, where Obama was not on the ballot, and you do not count caucus states. Besides, polls are better indication of support for the candidates among Democrats, and Obama led in all the polls at the end of the Nomination process.

Why does it matte whether pledged delegates vote for Clinton in the end? She had lost and she knew it.

Obama won fair and square.

Comment by Darryl | 2008-09-22 15:45:19

You can’t claim that cause the vote was manipulated. Can’t you see that flaw in your arguement.

You claim she lost, well, prove it? You can’t because the vote wasn’t represented at the convention.

The votes she did get were because those states had laws protecting voters from this kinda of scam.

Comment by cocky whacko | 2008-09-22 15:55:45

I start with the assumption that Hillary Clinton would have fought as long as she had a realistic chance to win. She was in constant contact with I also think she was competent enough to count votes. Therefore, the fact that she pulled out says that she had little if any chance to win.
Ther

Comment by Ferd McBerfle | 2008-09-22 16:01:44

So everything you post is based on YOUR assumptions and opinions. That’s a strikeout. Hit the showers, whacky pud-puller.

 
 
 

Comment by Ferd McBerfle | 2008-09-22 15:49:07

You are a liar and your candidate is a liar. That you take money to post lies will look *good* on your resume for years to come, asshole.

Comment by cocky whacko | 2008-09-22 15:57:46

What was my lie? I stated the facts and my interpretation of them.

Comment by Ferd McBerfle | 2008-09-22 16:04:03

I stated the facts and my interpretation of them.

Your facts are in dispute and your interpretations are lies.

Comment by cocky whacko | 2008-09-22 16:16:45

Here are the facts:

Obama won the most votes in states where both candidates were on the ballot.

He was ahead in all polls.

He had raised more money than Clinton.

He had a better ground operation.

He won more pledged delegates and in the end had more super delegates.

Clinton was the establishment candidate. She had more supporters in positions of power at the DNC. She had by far the most support from elected officials. Her husband is a very popular former president. If anyone could manipulate the rules in their favor it would have been her.

Are any of these facts untrue?

Comment by Ferd McBerfle | 2008-09-22 16:35:42

Actually all of your statements are false with the exception of the following:

He had raised more money than Clinton.

Everything else is merely your addle-headed, Kool-aide soaked opinion, bothead.

Better luck next time, loser.

Comment by cocky whacko | 2008-09-22 16:37:39

That was convincing.

 
 

Comment by Darryl | 2008-09-22 16:38:01

Yes. None of those have anything to do with voting at a convention. They are all reason to want to argue he could win a national election, but nothing what so ever to do with holding a real convention vote.

Answer these questions…..

How many of the delegates from Arkansas voted for Hillary Clinton when she won that state by over 60%?

How mnay of the voters in Arkansas who voted for Clinton in the Democratic Primary were represented at the DNC convention?

Comment by cocky whacko | 2008-09-22 16:49:07

What difference does it make? If Hillary had wanted a roll call vote where people stayed pledged to her she could have had it. What would be the point? If you know you lost, why not be gracious and get behind the candidate of your party. To her credit, that is what she did.

Comment by Darryl | 2008-09-22 16:52:21

I rest my case.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Comment by Darryl | 2008-09-22 15:50:02

Now if you want to say that obama was nominated at convention, you can say that, because by all accounts, its true. Was he nominated through representation? That can be argued and is being debated here.

I have a feeling though you will learn what it means to try to force a nominee on the public, as you will lose this election in a couple of months.

Comment by Darryl | 2008-09-22 15:51:57

OH to point to a fact that tells you that look up “nominated through acclimation”.

Obama was given the nomination through acclimation–the convention was a sham.

 
 

Comment by vinnie | 2008-09-22 15:59:33

He didn’t win fair and square. My friends were state delegates and they witnessed this fraud in plain daylight. They were planning to stand and vote for Hillary even if they were the last ones yelling her name through acclamation. They never were given a chance. How is that fair and square when the chosen State delegates weren’t even able to state the vote that they came there to cast?

Comment by cocky whacko | 2008-09-22 16:25:30

Even if what you say is true, what difference would that have made. Obama had the votes. He won under the rules as they were set up. Clinton never complained about the rules until she saw that they were hurting her.

Here is a scenario to consider. Assume the positions were reversed and Clinton was slightly ahead. Would you be making the same arguments about Obama delegates voting? I doubt it. You would be saying he was arrogant and was more worried about himself than electing a Democrat. So, spare me the phony outrage about disenfranchisement being your reason for not supporting Obama.

Comment by jd4hill | 2008-09-22 18:00:27

Hey I only need one reason not to support Senator Obama — I don’t trust him.

 
 
 
 

Comment by Maverick | 2008-09-22 15:39:41

More on Pelosi…..what a crook! She trying to block progress.

Please read.

the American people chanted the mantra “Drill Here, Drill Now” and pleaded with Congress to lift the moratorium on domestic drilling.

But instead of heeding the call, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, just perpetrated a SHAM that may well turn out to be one of the cruelest hoaxes EVER played on the American people.

On Monday, just before 10 o’clock in the evening, Pelosi submitted a previously unseen 294-page bill to Congress and using procedural shenanigans available to the Speaker of the House, she demanded a vote take place within 24-hours. And on Tuesday evening, 15 Republicans joined 221 Democrats to actually PASS THIS FRAUD ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

No amendments were allowed and only limited debate took place.

But wait! It gets worse.

Pelosi claims her bill was a compromise… a change of heart that ALLOWS off-shore drilling.

What Madame Pelosi didn’t tell you (and what the liberal media isn’t reporting) is that her SHAM bill — H.R. 6899, the so-called “Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act” — only allows drilling in those areas where THERE IS NO OIL and effectively extends the moratorium on domestic drilling where THERE IS OIL !

What Madame Pelosi also didn’t you — other than the fact that the bill does the EXACT OPPOSITE of what she says it does and effectively CUTS-OFF domestic drilling at a time when Americans are struggling over the escalating costs of gasoline — is that her “sham bill” also RAISES YOUR TAXES , and is LADEN WITH ENOUGH PORK TO CHOKE A GOAT!

Expect more of this Soviet-style hi-jacking of the legislative process if Barrack Hussein Obama is elected President and Nancy Pelosi is his Speaker of the House.

That’s why NOW is the time to tell our elected officials in one resounding avalanche of FAXES that WE WON’T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT!

NOW HERE’S MORE AND THIS WILL MAKE EVERYONE MAD.
She is saying yes and no all in one sentence like Obama does.

According to House Minority Leader John Boehner Pelosi’s “sham” legislation; “would permanently lock up 80 percent of our nation’s offshore energy resources – holding hostage billions of barrels of American oil…”

According to Congressman Jeb Hensarling it’s “a hoax bill that would permanently prevent exploration of nearly 90 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf for American energy and block energy production in arctic Alaska and the Inter-Mountain West.”

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt said; “I’m offended…. And the American people should be offended that we’re not doing the job for them that really matters.”

Our friends at The American Conservative Union (ACU) claim that Pelosi and Democrats in Congress are playing; “‘Let’s Pretend’ with the American people, pretending they are passing a bill to increase domestic energy production when they know it will do no such thing.”

ACU further states, “The bill prohibits drilling less than 50 miles offshore when the sponsors know that, to give an example, 95% of the known reserves off the coast of California are less than 50 miles out.”

And in what is probably the CRUELEST CUT OFF ALL, Pelosi’s sham bill just doesn’t effectively cut off domestic oil production, IT RAISES TAXES AS WELL!

Pelosi recently gushed that B. Hussein Obama was “a leader God has blessed us with.”

And her legislative shenanigans prove that she’ll be the willing Lieutenant of the man — Barack Hussein Obama — who once told us the solution to the our problems is to “inflate our tires” … the man who told us ,”we can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times,” … the man who told us that drilling for more oil is “not real” and won’t “solve our problems.”

NOW is the time to take our country back… NOW is the time to let socialist politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Hussein Obama know that Americans will not “go gentle into that good night” of servitude and subjugation to tyrannical oppression.

NOW is the time to stop liberals like Pelosi and B. Hussein Obama from spreading the misery across America.

Use this hyperlink or the button below to send your 50 FAXES to President George W. Bush, and EACH and EVERY one of the Republican Members of the United States Senate.

Tell them that the American people are not fooled by Pelosi’s “sham compromise” that effectively prohibits domestic drilling and raises taxes on average Americans!

Tell them that “drill here and drill now” means just that. That’s what the American people want… that is what the American people expect!

They want to pretend to be for drilling just enough to win the election but not do anything to actually produce more oil and gas.”

Those are the words of former-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich in an e-mail which he sent a short time ago titled; “New Left Wing Anti-Energy Strategy: Drill Nothing, Tax Everything.”

Commenting on the supposed willingness of Pelosi and Obama to allow domestic drilling, provided certain vague and unspecified conditions are met — Gingrich also said:

The New Left Wing Anti-Energy Strategy: Deceive, Deceive, Deceive…”

“But when you read beyond the headline of Speaker Pelosi’s statement and get to the details, it is clear she is trying to maneuver to block the Republicans from having a straight up or down vote on a powerful energy bill.

“Since the original anti-energy Democratic strategy of ‘no, no, no’ has collapsed they have moved to a new strategy of ‘deceive, deceive, deceive.’

“Their goal is to sound pro-energy just long enough to avoid defeat in the November elections while making sure that any legislation is hopelessly weak…”

But you don’t have to take this deception lying down. The election is less than 60 days away.

Politicians have a tendency to become accommodating when an election is just around the corner.

If you let them know — in no uncertain terms — that deception simply won’t work, they’ll do what you want… kicking and screaming all the way… but they will accommodate!

NOW is your chance to have a real effect and join other patriotic Americans to flood their offices with a message they cannot ignore!

Send your emails & FAXES to President George W. Bush, and EACH and EVERY one of the Members of the United States Senate.

Tell them that the American people are not fooled by Pelosi “sham compromises” that effectively prohibit domestic drilling and raise taxes on average Americans!

Tell them that “drill here and drill now” means just that. That’s what the American people want… that is what the American people expect!

This bill is an attempt to block Palin’s energy plans.

Comment by foxyladi14 | 2008-09-22 17:55:56

 
 

Comment by Susan B. | 2008-09-22 15:43:44

Thanks so much for sharing this. I think I may have to be active, not passive, in my support for McCain. I knew I was not voting for Obama, but now I may have to CAMPAIGN FOR JOHN McCAIN. Some people who have written here still think the lying Obama won the primary. I guess you can fool some of the people All of the Time.

Comment by dixie | 2008-09-22 16:13:01

No those people who think Obama WON are either confused or they are lying to themselves. I think it is the latter.

Comment by Darryl | 2008-09-22 16:40:35

If they can believe what happened at the convention, they will believe anything. I think that is the whole purpose of the “new democrats”–they need the clueless dumbasses of socity to believe anything that comes out of their mouths.

Comment by cocky whacko | 2008-09-22 16:44:39

How did he not win? Even under the wrong information from this post, Obama was ahead in delegates. What would have been different if Clinton delegates voted for Clinton? Under what possible scenario could Clinton have won the election?

Comment by Darryl | 2008-09-22 16:48:21

He did win, he won by acclimation. look it up.

Comment by trails | 2008-09-22 17:43:49

Which is probably why he will lose the general election!

 
 

Comment by Wisewoman | 2008-09-22 21:16:50

Dumbell Cocky Wacko. Read my post above regarding the superdelegates. In addition:
1. Do you agree that Obama (nor Hillary) had enough delegates to “win” the nomination outright? (17 votes separated them after MI and FL were fully seated as the DNC rules applied regardless of the lie told by Obama’s supporters). Do you agree that having 2200 plus delegates is the necessary requirement to be the nominee?
2. Do you agree that since that was the case at that point the superdelegates must then vote?
3. Do you agree that the superdelegates from the states won by Obama should vote for Obama and those won by Clinton should vote for Clinton according to the will of the people as expressed by their vote?

Well I’ve got news for you. Clinton won the big states, e.g. NY, MA. PA, OH, CA, TX. Just these named states superdelegate totals were 48, 28, 26, 21, 71, and 32, respectively. On the other hand Obama won states like AL, CT, GA, IL, LA, NC, OR with 12, 15, 31, 11, 14, and 12, respectively superdelegates.

With the caucaus red states that had few superdelegates to win and the few primaries he won he could not win the superdelegate vote IF THEY HAD VOTED AS THEIR CONSTITUENINTS VOTED. OBAMA WOULD HAVE LOST. Instead, the DNC and his supporters pulled a non military coup de tat. END OF CONVERSATION!!

Comment by cocky wacko | 2008-09-22 23:06:15

There was no reason why FL and MI had to be seated in full. That was done as a compromise after the outcome was settled. For the sake of argument, I will give you 1 and 2. I do not agree with 3. The Super Delegates were supposed to exercise independent judgment. And, why votes by state instead of vote by congressional district or some other method. They were free to vote any way they wanted and what became clear to Clinton was they were not going to go against the winner of the most pledged delegates. Under any scenario you can come up with Clinton loses. Maybe that was unfortunate, but that is what happened under the rules as set out.

Comment by cocky wacko | 2008-09-22 23:08:44

Also, lets say that Michigan and Florida would have had real votes that were contested. Clinton probably would have won, but she would not have receive all those delegates. Obama clearly would have finished ahead in the popular vote and pledged delegates. Do you agree with that?

 

Comment by Jaycephus | 2008-09-23 00:19:43

Hmmmm, if you concede 1 & 2, then how was the convention anything other than a ’show’?

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Comment by Pearl | 2008-09-22 15:44:56

As a recent commenter (2 weeks) to this site, may I offer this: http://www.slate.com/id/2109328 If you scroll down to the 6th paragraph or so, note Ms. Brazile’s mention of the “Obama factor.”

The fix was already in, my friends. I thought you knew. Yes, this was written the day after election day 2004. The DNC had it all figured out they just forgot to tell the rest of us, including the primary candidates. Bet they’re ticked, since they are also still in debt.

Comments, Thoughts?

Comment by Darryl | 2008-09-22 15:57:06

I have been think hard about this. I am an hard core clinton supporter, but I think that Hillary may have been in the race, just for the show of it as well.

The reason I say this is because of certain things that happened during the primary. Whenever she was getting ahead of Obama, she would do stuff to screw her chances. Like the bosnia incident.

In addition right at the end, before the last big states voted, she made the comment about the JFK assisnation.

I don’t want to believe it, but my head tells me that Hillary knew what the outcome would be.

Now, I think she doesn’t think its going to work, but I believe she was part of the scam the whole time.

Comment by Maverick | 2008-09-22 15:59:01

I do too. It gave legitimacy to the appearance of a real election. Hoo boy.

Palin/McCain 2008

 

Comment by cocky whacko | 2008-09-22 16:03:52

The Clintons had more power over the DNC and it rules than anybody. The idea that somehow Obama was able to engineer the rules in his favor and poor Hillary was defenseless to stop it is really comical.

The only reason Obama was able to beat Clinton, the establishment candidate, was he is smart and charismatic and he was able to raise a lot of money from small donors.

Comment by Chicago Joe | 2008-09-22 16:05:48

From foreign countries.

Comment by Kevin | 2008-09-22 16:17:30

 

Comment by cocky whacko | 2008-09-22 16:26:46

You are kidding, right?

Comment by bemused | 2008-09-22 17:39:18

Not kidding, he did. Right after all the big tycoons that he “never” does business with.

 

Comment by snosandy | 2008-09-22 18:04:22

Oh, sure, he raised it from all those rich high school and college kids. No wonder the banks are in crisis, those kids maxed out all their credit cards and can’t pay them back now.

 
 
 

Comment by BRae | 2008-09-22 19:16:08

Are you on drugs, cocky wacko? Small donors — try foreign money.

Charismatic? Tryhaving the corrupt party leadership behind you and stabbing Hillary in the back all day and the media fluffing your pillows for you — he has gotten more Wall St, money than any other candidate.

 

Comment by Wisewoman | 2008-09-22 21:26:36

The reason he “got where he is now” (he didn’t win anything) is because he used race-baiting lies against the Clintons in SC. Bill will never forgive him for that cheap George Wallace type tactic. I am an AA female Hillary supporter and I will never vote for Obama. I detest him for that race mongering shit.

 
 

Comment by Judy L. NC | 2008-09-22 16:27:43

 

Comment by jd4hill | 2008-09-22 18:02:44

That is about the goofiest thing I have heard in a long time.

She would have stopped a long time ago if all that was required was legtimiacy — like in mid Feb after his string of caucus wins/and the wins near D.C.

 

Comment by MIDem | 2008-09-22 18:20:06

I’ll never believe that. Never.

 

Comment by Jaycephus | 2008-09-23 00:25:40

Too many of us, left, right, & center, like to go the conspiracy route these days. There is no way anybody goes into multi-million dollar debt in a campaign just to play a role in someone else’s show. No way.

 
 
 

Comment by Paul3triple | 2008-09-22 15:45:03

McCain/Palin are not lawyers. Obama/Biden are lawyers.

We need less lawyers in Washington.

Also to the person above saying i am naive because i think it is BS to say Hillary has a gun to her head.
Why has hillary not shown the fraud of the roll call.
the only thing naive is saying she is doing it for us and then in the same breath say she is doing it for her career to run 2012.
Your living in lala land. What she is doing right now, is what is wrong in politics.
Sitting by while some corrupt ass steals an election and turn around and support him without a word of protest.
to assume the most powerful women in america along with the greatest Democrat alive is helpless is naive.
I like them both alot. Bill is my favortie politician. And i like that he is not out campaigning. Hillary could do the same. Bill is not raising any money. Hillary could do the same.
Bill barely speaks of obama. Hillary could do the same. Bill praises mccain. Hillary could do the same.

I love them both. But hillary is looking out for hillary. This article proves it. She got shafted and let it roll off her back.

 

Comment by Maverick | 2008-09-22 15:48:29

It looks like McCain/Palin are desperately raising money to fight back the Fraudbama lies.

If anyone can donate please do. There is too much at stake. The money goes into a special fund for Palin.
here is what she says:
Friends, in the course of a few weeks, the Obama-Biden Democrats have launched attack after attack on me, my family and John McCain. They’re desperate to win and they’ll no doubt launch these attacks against other reformers on our ticket.

They are spreading lies and misinformation and we must stop them. Your immediate contribution of any amount- whether it’s $25 or $250- helps McCain-Palin Victory 2008 fight back before they turn these shameful tactics on others we support.

I’m sure you’ve heard that in this election, the Obama-Biden Democrats have a large financial advantage over us. You can help us close this gap today by following this link to make your secure online donation to McCain-Palin Victory 2008. The financial support you give today will make all the difference in this election. Thank you for your support. http://www.johnmccain.com to donate.

 

Comment by LIsabona | 2008-09-22 15:52:20

WE, all of us, who voted for Hillary, we knew she won fairly and with hard work. But, I just can’t get over, no matter how hard I try. Why Hillary abandoned her 18 million supporters and why she accepted that shamefull roll call. I felt really hurt.My feeling is,she blow any chance to ever be president.If, Obama wins,he will stay 8 years. If McCain wins,even with one term, folowed by Sara Palin,an other 8 years. No way she would be running at age of 68 or 72, when Sarah is just 44 years old. Maybe, I’m wrong,this is just my thinking, that makes me made more, why she didn’t choose country first instead of party?.She could change and run as independent.I’m sure she would be a winner.

Comment by Pearl | 2008-09-22 16:09:13

SNAP out of it and stop your whining. Don’t make me come over there, Lisabona! She’s a Democrat and she’s doing exactly what she’s supposed to do.

Now, are you gonna toughen up? C’mon, Lisabona, we’re counting on you too. Let’s keep our eye on the ball, shall we?

Shalom.

 
 

Comment by Maverick | 2008-09-22 15:53:52

Please go to http://www.clintons4mccain.com to get flyers about Obama and material to pass out at wal-marts and to put on cars in parking lots. This is the next order of business until election day and it only takes a couple hours per day. realdemocrats has material too. This is for Democrats for Mccain grassroots effort to pass out flyers to people and let them know it’s ok not to vote for a crooked Dem this year.

Comment by just me | 2008-09-23 00:37:45

is there a direct link I must be blind cannot find any fliers?

 
 

Comment by Pearl | 2008-09-22 15:59:56

As a recent commenter (2 weeks) to this site, may I offer this: http://www.slate.com/id/2109328 If you scroll down to the 6th paragraph or so, note Ms. Brazile’s mention of the “Obama factor.”

The fix was already in, my friends. I thought you knew. Yes, this was written the day after election day 2004. The DNC had it all figured out they just forgot to tell the rest of us, including the primary candidates. Bet they’re ticked, since they are also still in debt.

Comments, Thoughts?

Comment by Chicago Joe | 2008-09-22 16:03:55

We have discussed that one msny times before. zThat is a major reason Donna Brazile is considered one of the archvillains on this site.

Comment by Pearl | 2008-09-22 16:11:58

Thanks CJ, good to know.

Comment by standard | 2008-09-22 16:46:11

Brazilenut owes her career to the Clintons.

 
 
 

Comment by Ferd McBerfle | 2008-09-22 16:54:30

She was the architect of Gore’s snatching of defeat from the jaws of victory in 2000. She should have been run out of town on a rail after that incident.

 

Comment by Ani | 2008-09-22 21:55:38

Yes, Pearl, we reported about Donna Brazile’s 11/5/2004 article in Slate referencing the “Obama Factor” many times on this site.

That is why we have been saying the fix was in for ages. Thank you for mentioning.

 
 

Comment by KXT | 2008-09-22 16:00:16

Obama is playng up the race card because of the early voting states. That’s the real Barack Obama and the media is helping him do it.

O.B.A.M.A.= Only Blacks Are My Allies

Comment by tzada | 2008-09-22 21:45:29

He is also counting on the United Nations to step in and give him this election. That is why he is bringing up the race card over and over and over. His MSM are aiding and abetting. Trying to establish something that exists only in his mind and 90% of his voters.

Maybe he hopes if he loses the DNC will create the position of Prime Minister for him. Worked for Putin and Obama cuz in Kenya.

 
 

Comment by Geoff | 2008-09-22 16:01:14

FYI folks…
Corporate sockpuppetry for Team Obama?posted at 8:30 am on September 22, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend | printer-friendly Rusty Shackleford has done extensive research into the efforts to smear Sarah Palin as a member of a secessionist party, when in fact she has been a lifelong Republican. Videos that appeared on YouTube supporting this smear have been tracked — circumstantially, but substantially — to the CEO of a public-relations firm, strongly suggesting that the smear campaign did not arise organically as an outgrowth of Palinmania but had financing, planning, and intent. Who would have had the means for such a campaign? I’ll get back to that in a minute.
Rusty runs down the evidence at hand:
Evidence suggests that a YouTube video with false claims about Palin was uploaded and promoted by members of a professional PR firm.
The family that runs the PR firm has extensive ties to the Democratic Party, the netroots, and are staunch Obama supporters.
Evidence suggests that the firm engaged in a concerted effort to distribute the video in such a way that it would appear to have gone viral on its own. Yet this effort took place on company time.
Evidence suggests that these distribution efforts included actions by at least one employee of the firm who is unconnected with the family running the company.
The voice-over artist used in this supposedly amateur video is a professional.
This same voice-over artist has worked extensively with David Axelrod’s firm, which has a history of engaging in phony grassroots efforts, otherwise known as “astroturfing.”
David Axelrod is Barack Obama’s chief media strategist.
The same voice-over artist has worked directly for the Barack Obama campaign.
Rusty tracks this down to Winner & Associates, and to Chuck and Ethan Winner, the family that owns it. If all of this is true and the Obama campaign can be connected to it, it would represent a massive set of FEC violations, as well as the ultimate repudiation of “hope and change” and “New Politics”. In fact, it would be a massive demonstration of Chicago Politics on a national scale.
Could this be true? Normally, one would shrug off such a suggestion by saying that no national campaign would be dumb enough to try this, especially one ahead in the polls. However, consider what Team Obama did to Stanley Kurtz and David Freddoso. They don’t seem hesitant in the least to conduct smear campaigns and character assassination to win elections, and they conducted those two attacks openly. With that kind of track record, it doesn’t seem out of the question for them to have conducted a slimy, unethical attack on a political opponent who threatened to steal all of the oxygen away from their campaign in a way that hid their involvement.
This would normally be a great story for our national media to investigate and expose. Will they? Don’t hold your breath, but do read all of Rusty’s post and his continuing updates.

 

Comment by cocky whacko | 2008-09-22 16:05:07

Hillary just held a private conference call with Ohio Governor Ted Strickland and dozens of donors to her campaign and to Ohio Dems, urging them to plow funds into the coffers of the Ohio state party so it can help execute the ground game on Barack Obama’s behalf, a Hillary aide confirms to me.

“There isn’t any doubt that Ohio once again will be the pivotal state in this election and I know that it’s extremely close in the state,” Hillary told the donors, according to excerpts of the call sent our way by her office.

Hillary also promised extensive future visits to the state on Obama’s behalf. “I will be back campaigning up and down the state to make the case that the failed leadership of the last eight years should not be rewarded with another four,” she told the donors.

Hillary also predicted that the economic meltdown would persuade Ohioans to back the Democrat. “I think that as we go through this very serious economic crisis, more and more Ohioans are going to say: ‘Wait a minute we need a new vision. We need new leadership. We need a new hand on the tiller,’” Hillary said.

Hillary also will release a so-called radio actuality that can be played on local radio stations urging people to join up her new “Hillary Sent Me” program. Hillary aides promise more such localized fundraising calls and activities in the future, part of a ramped up effort on her part to help Obama in the hard-fought battleground states.

Comment by standard | 2008-09-22 16:42:36

Obama made a total ass out of himself in Ohio. No way will he win that state.

 

Comment by Darryl | 2008-09-22 16:45:41

Look Whacko, we know you like Obama. Thats great, but the REAL FACT here is that I am a 31 year old GAY MALE, whom is going to vote for a republican for the first time in my life.

That is not made up. Its not some fantasy to lure you away from the honey pot. Its real. That is a fact. And believe me, if a gay man is going to do that, I can’t imagaine how many other people feel the same.

I never in my life thought I would vote republican–true story and the story of a majority of Americans nationwide.

 
 

Comment by socalannie | 2008-09-22 16:15:17

This is a great post, Ani. Thank you. Yes, the Democratic Convention was a total sham from start to the ridiculous Acropolis-type pageantry finish. The leaders of the DNC are fucking shameless, and Heidi Li & Marc are heroes to take this on.

 

Comment by Mr.Murder | 2008-09-22 16:20:47

Marc Rubin or Mark Rubin(head of Morgan Stanley’s liability, society of petroleum engineers gulf coast section guest speaker)?

 

Comment by MPR | 2008-09-22 16:22:57

Sarah got 60,000 in Central Florida. I live in the most liberal bastion of Florida; Broward County and in particular East Fort Lauderdale.

Broward goes Democratic big!

Not this year.

I have spoken to many people in working lives. The women will be going for Sarah in Broward.

The demos will still win Broward but like NJ the blue will be much less.

I predict an electoral landslide if the MASK comes off.

Florida is Red. VA and Ohio will be red……Michigan 17 and Penn 21 will go red.

Damn, I’m already a racists but if I go with the red with the Maxist Racists call me a Commie?

Haha

Comment by Duras | 2008-09-22 17:03:02

If McCain wins either Michigan or Pennsylvania, he’s in like flint. He might be able to win even if he loses both of them, but then he’d need to take either Colorado or New Mexico. The two states he absolutely can’t lose are Ohio and Florida.

 
 

Comment by Yeti | 2008-09-22 16:34:58

Pledged Delegates –
Total 3434
Obama 1766.5
Clinton 1639.5

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

Keep lying.

Comment by standard | 2008-09-22 16:40:55

Maybe they weren’t counting the
-bribed- or -threatened- delegates.

 

Comment by Darryl | 2008-09-22 16:43:01

HA HA HA he quote realclear politics.

My god, someone quick, create another blog with a post of the delegate count and slap Obama’s face on it.

Comment by Yeti | 2008-09-22 16:47:53

I’d love to see you explain why those numbers are wrong and the ones in this post are correct. I’m guessing that will never happen.

Comment by Darryl | 2008-09-22 16:53:41

If I find one source that has different numbers will you conceed that you are wrong?

 
 
 

Comment by Cahil | 2008-09-22 16:59:54

Uh — they are not counting the seated florida and michigan delegates — at full strength — the way Obama wanted.

Comment by cocky whacko | 2008-09-22 17:16:07

So, even when you count the seated delegates from FL and MI at full strength, Clinton was behind. Clinton’s only other hope was to appeal to the Super Delegates, but it was clear the Super Delegates were going to go with Obama. Why? He won the most votes, the most states, the most delegates, raised the most money, and was ahead in the polls. I really don’t see where the big grievance is. If you want to leave the Democratic Party and vote for McCain, then go ahead, but you need a better reason than the nomination process was unfair.

Comment by jd4hill | 2008-09-22 18:05:48

Did you not see WHICH states she won — read 1 through 6 again above — are you awake or what?

Who gives a damn if he won Wyoming and Idaho. When did that ever win an election for a Dem. candidate

She had the popular vote, all the big states, the swing states, the Dem base — what more do you need — are you joking?

“It’s the electability, stupid.”

Comment by cocky whacko | 2008-09-22 18:27:03

I thought you were concerned about democratic legitimacy. As far as electability goes, look at the following facts.

Obama had the ability to raise more money.

He was ahead in the polls against Clinton.

He ran better head to head against McCain than Clinton when they were polling that question.

He had a much better political team. Clinton had every advantage entering the race and blew it.

The fact that she won swing states in the primary is meaningless. The primary and GE electorates are different and winning one has nothing to do with winning the other.

Comment by BRae | 2008-09-22 19:14:14

He’s not looking very good now, is he?

Hillary predicted this –as did we all.

Comment by cocky wacko | 2008-09-22 19:56:24

He is winning. You need to read something besides the comment section here.

 
 
 
 
 
 

Comment by Wisewoman | 2008-09-22 21:45:46

Zell. Why do you lie or try to mislead people on this site? Why do you continue to link to data for June, 3, 2008. This data is not current. Before the convention the rules committee was going to fully seat FL and MI so Obama “decided” to seat them at 100%. This changed the numbers to put Hillary within 17 pledged delegate votes since she won both states. DEAL WITH IT AND STOP PUTTING OUT OLD, FALSE INFO. We don’t do that here, otherwise get the h*ll out of here or be honest with the people. I despise people like you. You are a clone of Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comment by cocky wacko | 2008-09-23 00:31:07

The only reason they were fully seated was that the issue was decided. It was a symbolic gesture. Even if you assume they would seat FL and MI, she was still BEHIND!. Get over it. She lost.

Comment by just me | 2008-09-23 00:48:09

and your man will loose Nov 4th so get ready and u just get over it too. Wako

 
 
 
 

Comment by standard | 2008-09-22 16:38:55

Krugman is against a bailout.
He says it’s another giveaway scam.
httpCOLON//wwwDOTnytimesDOTcom/2008/09/22/opinion/22krugman.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin

Comment by Duras | 2008-09-22 17:00:33

Krugman is against everything. All the time. He never has a positive or uplifting thing to say about anyone or anything. He’s obviously got a major chip on his shoulder about life. He’s an embittered, cynical troll. Just be glad you’re not like him.

 
 

Comment by It's Not Me | 2008-09-22 16:39:04

*sigh* Now I have another SPLITTING headache from the RAGE! I cannot tell you how much this ticks me off. I can’t even as much as look at BO without spewing a few swear words his way…DITTO for hateful Michelle. That’s what I’ve done for 8 freakin’ LOOOOOONG years whenever I see the idiot-in-chief on teevee. BO musters the same exact visceral hatred in me because I know, he too, is ILLEGITIMATE just like the idiot-in-chief is. Man, I hope I don’t have to spend another 8 years muting my teevee whenever the President is on. It’s so damn tiring. :( I’m tired of stupid Presidents. So freakin’ tired of it…and EMBARRASSED!

Comment by Ferd McBerfle | 2008-09-22 16:47:27

You said it. I’m tired of arrogant, ignorant politicians like Oblockhead. There are not enough pejoratives in the English language to adequately describe his unfitness for office.

 
 

Comment by Raven | 2008-09-22 16:39:22

OT…IF YOU MISSED – President Clinton on THE View
check out Alegre’s Corner for the complete videos.

 

Comment by Cahil | 2008-09-22 16:56:59

A very astute article, even if it is depressing.

It is a shame and a sham that the MSM still won’t ask the tough questions of Obumble, and that the narrative of his great persuasiveness and unifying ability are all they rely on.

The list of his inadequacies is so long that it’s only trumped by the list of his lies.

But Marc Rubin is right. People are stupid. With all the evidence out there to the contrary, people who defend Obumble just want to stay stupid. Apparantly, it must give their life meaning that someone isn’t any smarter than they are like those who defended Bush.

For the rest of us, we like to think that the presidency should have someone capable of knowing the number of states they represent, where the Great Lakes are located, being able to hold a single meeting for the committee you chair in the Senate, not to mention having any plans for the current fiscal crisis that don’t involve getting your advice from the likes of Raines, Johnson, and Pritzker, and having a plan for Iraq that doesn’t involve violating the Logan Act.

PUMA

 

Comment by EMJ | 2008-09-22 16:59:21

If you’re fortunate enough to know delegates who voted for Clinton in Denver, ask them about their experiences. I spoke with one a few days ago — he was wined and dined, taken to receptions, etc. When he still voted for Clinton for the “roll call”, he was roundly criticized, cold-shouldered, asked to move away from the delegation, etc. So much for freedom of speech/thought!!

 

Comment by navyvet48 | 2008-09-22 17:03:55

I interviewed a Washington State delegate while I was in Denver. I reported on that interview right here at NoQuarter, I also spoke to three other delegates while in Denver. They all said off the record that they were being pressured to vote for Obama although their constituency were Hillary supporters. If they did not then the vote would be held in secret. They said basically they would be given their ballots at breakfast and make their votes in the privacy of their hotel rooms. I dismissed it the first time I heard but when I heard it 2 more times, I knew it was true.

One Hillary delegate barely kept her status because she was a registered Independent. She said she fought hard to not be challenged.

Then there was the infamous Gloria, a Hillary delegate, who sat at breakfast with a napkin shoved in her mouth becaue the 100 or so Obama delegates from CA refused to let the Hillary supporters their say! If you recall California passedon the voting. This was part of the shenanigans of the rigged roll call vote,

There should be no doubt that the roll call was rigged!

Comment by navyvet48 | 2008-09-22 17:25:02

Gloria is Gloria Allred in my earlier comment!

 
 

Comment by Sassy | 2008-09-22 17:16:45

The Tn. delegates, as well as other states, were required to vote as the voters did on the first ballot UNLESS they were released.
Thus the pressure!
I disagreed with Marc on one aspect of the interview…the media played no role in the fiasco, so their observations or lack of any did not matter.
The Democratic leaders did exactly what they set out to do, come hell or high water! Thus I didn’t watch…no surprise!

 

Comment by standard | 2008-09-22 18:40:22

it is good to see emphasis on how HRC was trampled by the DNC in tandem with the party high rollers.

I relate to that much better than the heavenly joys of forcing your 13-year-old to go through labor and early marriage, if her boyfriend’s condom breaks.

Comment by BRae | 2008-09-22 19:13:02

which 13 year old are you talking about — no one’s child on any ticket is that age and pregnant.

 
 

Comment by Right on the Left Coast | 2008-09-22 18:52:20

Good report, Ani. I want to lay out a scenario that, I believe, would have launched the Democratic Party to a landslide victory. Imagine prior to the convention, Sens. Clinton and Obama hold a joint press conference to state that moving the country in the right direction and at the will of the people is of the utmost importance. They will enter the convention as equals, given the popular vote and pledged delegate totals, and let the delegate process work and the people have their say. They agree to seat all Michgan and Florida delegates as a sign of unity. Because of the Florida and Michigan delegates, Hillary Clinton wins a majority of delegates (but not enought to get an outright win) and the superdelegates then bring her over the top, as they don’t want to be seen as supporting the loser. Barack Obama then graciously accepts the will of the people and congratulates Hillary on an incredible and historic election cycle and throws his support behind her 100% and urges all of his “followers” to do the same. Hillary, in turn, immediately names Obama as her running mate for VP and they do a little McCain/Palin hug and mug all night for the cameras. Hillary then gives her great speech the next night, Obama serves as the attack dog for Hillary over the next two months, and we are looking at a minimum of four years of Democrats in the WH and an increase in congressional seats.

But…that didn’t happen. So, we’ll see how things go. Best of luck to everyone.

 

Comment by bayareavoter | 2008-09-22 19:02:59

Well, this is a depressing post. I just keep wondering WHY this unfolded like it did. How did the Obama machine wield so much power? Why did old friends of the Clintons align themselves with Obama. This is not democracy.

I was one of those who were furious with Nader in 2000 but now I do think he’s right–the parties are the same! (not that Gore wouldn’t have been a thousand times better president than the clown we got)

No other countries allow this amount of money in their politics and it is a completely corrupting influence. I will vote McCain for 2 reasons: I won’t support what the Dems did this year and I do believe he will try to reform Washington.

 

Comment by Susan1968 | 2008-09-22 20:59:13

I think Hillary gave in because her office-holding supporters and super dels were being threatned by the DNC.

If she would have pushed it — like Ted Kennedy did when he went up against Carter at the convention — she would have been accused of creating a party split that lost the Dems the election.

And even if she did fight on the convention floor, the supers would have given it to him.

By stepping out of the way she leaves the O-team to fail on their own.

I think this is very strategic on Hillary’s part — no matter what she did, the supers would have given him the nomination — so she could not change the outcome.

But should could act in such a way that she can live to fight another day.

I think HRC’s strategy was straight out of “The Art Of War.”

Give the Clintons credit — they know what they’re doing.

 

Comment by Diana L. C. | 2008-09-22 20:59:48

I think that this issue is the central issue to explain the turning away of so many Hillary people from the Democratic Party. No one likes to feel duped, and especially by people who are supposed to be “on your side.”

I am totally depressed. I got my “Tell them Hillary sent you” email from Hillary today. It’s the first time I deleted an email from the Hillary organization.

I know she is doing whatever it takes to stay alive politically. I know if she had pushed too hard, she could have caused a deeper split in the party. This way O is going down as the Divider, not her.

But, it makes me so, so sad how many people refuse to look at the numbers and the situation and realized how the election was stolen from the people.

 

Comment by NancyJoe | 2008-09-22 21:05:29

This is ALL true. I am producing a movie about voter fraud and what the DNC and Obama did to Hillary. Anyone who doesn’t believe this is just plain brain dead. Go to http://www.wewillnotbesilenced2008.com and take a look. And that’s just the BEGINNING of what we shot in five weeks and on our own money. We intend to keep going and expose Obama and the DNC for the scum that they are. The DNC and Obama Campaign are the filthiest, dirtiest, nastiest most CORRUPT group of people in American voting history. PERIOD. The roll call, the voter fraud, everything…big fraud on AMERICA and the AMERICAN VOTERS. I guess Obama and Pelosi never read the CONSTITUTION or understand the one person, one vote principal. Well, they are going to get it. Exposed for the lying trash they are. How the hell would any Dem vote for the party and candidate that threw them under the bus and “silenced” their votes. This is a long project for us, but we will never stop, not until every dirt move by Obama and Pelosi are uncovered and exposed. Obama needs to be taken down and sent back to Chicago. Oh yeah, they don’t want the do nothing idiot either.

 

Comment by Marc F | 2008-09-22 21:35:49

I was a Clinton delegate in Denver and I actually voted for Hillary. I have to thank Marc Rubin, Heidi Li Feldman and all the PUMAs that helped to make that happen. However, the DNC decided long before the convention who their nominee would be and they did everything they needed to do to force that outcome regardless of the votes. I thought the convention was part of the democratic process but to the DNC it was just a media show. They did everything possible to keep the delegates in the dark and manipulate us. We need to take our party back and restore democracy to the Democratic Party. Get involved.

 

Comment by NancyJoe | 2008-09-22 21:40:03

Comment by Kelvin Hearts PUMAs | 2008-09-22 15:31:29

This is the number that you PUMA’s need to come to terms with: The Final Pledged Delegate Count
Hillary Clinton 1,730.5 — 39.17%
Barack Obama 1,747.5 — 39.55%
The rules are that the candidates with the most pledged and super-delegates win the primary. The numbers above state Obama won 17 more pledged delegates than Hillary did. The super delegates placed him at the magic 2110 number to claim victory. The popular vote only means the she won the larger states. Obama won more states. He took the caucuses seriously and won them. Hillary showed up and thought that was enough. She put in some work near the end, but by then it was too late. Don’t hate Obama for trying to win, blame Hillary for and her campaign for underestimating him.

===========================================

It’s sad that there are stupid people like this out there. Is this an Obama Troll? Like I said, we have PROOF that the Obama Campaign committed THOUSANDS of acts of voter fraud that STOLE the delegates from Hillary. There are 2000 complaints, some police reports included, in TEXAS ALONE. Anyone in “the know” of what has gone on knows this happened and they aren’t voting for Obama. Never. The reports include phony documentation, all the ACORN stuff, registering people’s dogs, etc., busing in huge busloads of black kids from other states, offering them a day off school and a free lunch to vote for Obama, the Hillary voters were LOCKED OUT, THREATENED, INTIMIDATED, etc. What was done to HUMAN BEINGS is so reprehensible and disgusting that you would have to have your head WAY UP YOUR AZZ to vote for Obama. Trust me, this is getting out there. Major papers are doing this story soon. And we have TONS more people, AMERICAN CITIZENS, on film and to be filmed that will just make you cry. If you see our film, there are scenes that break your heart, literally. I have cried almost daily because my country is so low that we would accept the behavior that has gone on. THIS IS AMERICA and we don’t TOLERATE THIS. For any of you who think this didn’t happen, you’re still drunk on the Obama crack and Kool-aid. PERIOD.

 

Comment by Wisewoman | 2008-09-22 22:07:31

As McCain says “my good friends” we must derive a strategy to keep Hillary from openly campaigning for Obama. I am serious. These are my suggestions:
1. Follow her suggestion and show up in force at events where she is speaking. Bring your Hillary for president signs, make signs from poster board which say a variety of things.
2. Every time Hillary say vote for Obama, yell “Hillary, Hillary for president.
3. Shout “we love Hillary, we despise Obama.
4. Yell NOOBAMA throughout the rally and deny her the ability to speak.
5. Before each event call up the local and national news media, especially FOX News.
This will force Obama to stop asking her to campaign for him because these tactics will embarass him, have the media talking about it, and he can’t stand to share the spotlight.
LASTLY THIS WILL PUT US OUT OF THE MISERY WE ARE IN WATCHING HER CAMPAIGN FOR HIM.
Comments anyone?

Comment by jd4hill | 2008-09-22 22:15:08

You might get that idea over to Will Bower of PUMA/JustSayNo Deal, hireheels, clintondems — some of the other websites that are por-Hillary and pass the word around and see what they think…

 

Comment by bemused | 2008-09-22 22:33:49

That would sure ring 0’s bell. :)

 
 
 

Comment by Susan Trechak | 2008-09-22 22:36:12

Ani, I said just exactly THAT in the middle of all of my many breakdowns during the primary season: I wondered why the DNC bothered to spend the money & waste theirs and everyone else’s time orchestrating these primaries in the first place? Why do THAT when stealing votes is so much more efficient?

Boy, Brazile et al were really obvious at what they were doing. They were stupid then and they are stupid now.

The final straw for me was on the eve of the Indiana primary when Obot upended Hillary by unofficially announcing that HE was the candidate!(I think that night was the second time he had done that.) We didn’t even have time to enjoy Hillary’s win before Obot found YET another reason to hog the spotlight & to insert himself into HER picture!

I was already steaming mad because of the continuing & oh-so-obvious fraud & Obot’s unilateral announcement didn’t help my anger! So, that evening I wrote Pelosi the most scathing letter & faxed it to her office. It is not unusual for me to write letters to whomever – but this letter was definitely “borderline”! But, to this day I still mean everything I said in that letter – including all those bad words I used!

I spent most of the next day wondering if Pelosi & the DNC would somehow have me arrested! Now I’ve never in my life caused anyone problems – so it was bizarre to find myself in this situation.

Nowadays everything seems to be opposite to the way things normally are. Strange, but true.

Thanks for the great post!

Comment by Ani | 2008-09-22 23:00:11

Susan,

Thank you for your comment. I have been completely distraught over what has happened to my (now former) party. I never would have believed it if I had not seen it for myself.

To think that we are being deprived of a great candidate like Hillary in favor of the dissembling, grossly unprepared Obama.

The best we can do at the moment is vote our conscience and do our best to get the truth out their and fight the MSM spin.

Forward links and info to friends, family — whomever you can. Confront the news media and demand they cover the real news fairly. Whether it seems to work or not — the more they know someone is watching and holding them accountable, eventually that pressure does make a dent. In large numbers, anyway.

MSNBC/NBC have been the biggest culprits this election season — but you will notice that Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann were ‘demoted’ from doing any election coverage this year.

That change only happened because of the outrage of people like you and me — writing and calling the network constantly to complain about them.

Grassroots does work if enough people are committed to doing it.

Comment by FranSC | 2008-09-23 23:25:41

Ani, I’ve been involved in politics for a long time, but nothing has ever taken hold of me quite like this. These past 9 months have been emotionally wrenching – losing faith in people that I had very much liked and trusted. I have decided several things:
1) We MUST defeat Obama to have credibility.
2) We MUST make a list of dem elected officials
who contributed to Hillary not being the
nominee and systematically help defeat
them in their districts or states. We can
do that with money to their opponant’s
campaign and writing letters to newspapers
on how they were bought by Obama and by
how much ($). I’m sure others can come up
with ideas on this as well.
3) Terry McAuliff would know how we could fire
the entire DNC and start over. There is
very bad blood between James Carville and
Howard Dean over the 50-State Strategy.
Does anyone know how the DNC works in terms
of how the chairman/chairwoman is put in
place / elected (by whom) or appointed? The
other members? I would want Harold Ickes to
stay on there, but he is the ONLY one.

 
 

Comment by just me | 2008-09-23 01:05:18

can they not be held responsible for having the fix in a taking money in for the fraudulent way the process was handled??

The DNC took money as donations knowing they already had their Nom???

 
 

Comment by NancyJoe | 2008-09-22 22:38:50

Why is it that there are SOOOOO MANY OF US? So many who KNOW THE TRUTH and we CAN’T GET THE MEDIA TO PAY ATTENTION? My GOD Obama commits CRIMINAL acts and no one listens. He has gotten away with the most vile acts from start to finish. What do we have to do? How can we get EVERYONE TOGETHER to stop Obama? Does EVERYONE have to start a new group? Really rally the press and call them on their crap? Obama is a threat to America and I will not be a sheep and watch him destroy it. There is strength in numbers and we HAVE to get rid of him – out of this race for all of his illegal activity. WTF?

 

Comment by Susan Trechak | 2008-09-22 22:49:47

Exposing Obot would not have been so difficult had it not been for the MSM obstructing the truth in order to assist Obot.

All of these people need to be put away. I mean it. Why should any of us listen to the news when the news fails to provide us with pertinent information that is so vital to our decision-making processes?

Withhholding material information in a court of law is called “obstruction of justice.” The reasoning here is that you cannot reasonably defend yourself without having all the pertinent information. Why should your opposition benefit to your demise?

Considering the grave, large-scale ramifications impacting millions of people – I can honestly say that what the MSM has done here is even worse than an obstruction-of-justice charge in a court of law.

How can we ever again trust the news? There is really only one answer: We can’t ever again trust them. Never.

 

Comment by Susan Trechak | 2008-09-22 23:11:06

Plus – the MSM would never come around NOW, anyway. Coming around NOW would only be an admission of guilt & show that they were complicit in this whole NATIONAL affair. The stupid MSM is not in the business of exposing its own shortcomings – even if those shortcomings are criminal in nature.

That’s why, when this all eventually comes out, the MSM will blame ALL OF US by falsely calling us racists. I have recently noticed that the MSM is slowly increasing the number of stories that cite “racism” as the probable cause should Obot lose. They can’t even admit that they had anything to do with ANY of this. Instead, WE will be the accused – - we the people that can’t broadcast our opinions on television.

Yeah, it’s unfair all right. Reminds me a lot of Obot’s extreme efforts to silence dissent.

I wonder if Obot paid the MSM to be in the tank for him? Not ALL of these people could have been THAT stupid.

What’s really stupid is conducting explicit voter fraud without thinking that the fraud might just realize a nominee that, ahem, can’t win the general election. It is only by legitimately allowing the process to NATURALLY select a candidate can you rest assured you have a viable candidate for the general.

Stupid, dumb people. Look at what these idiots have done. THEY have to ALL go, too!

 

Comment by Susan Trechak | 2008-09-22 23:15:32

I hear ya, Ani.

I’ve been devoted to Hillary’s cause for a very long time. Now, without Hillary, I’ve been devoted to taking Obama OUT. The guy is such a bad, bad, criminal.

I really think these people must be punished. BIG TIME.

I saw Hillary on stupid MSM today. She looked really, really tired. I wonder if those Obot idiots are threatening and/or harassing her? God only knows – if Obot loses they MIGHT even blame HER.

 

Comment by WIldChild | 2008-09-23 23:32:46

I used to like Kool Aid back when it was sold in little packets. You mixed it with ice and water, added a little sugar, drew a smiley face on the pitcher and poured yourself a glass. But that must have been a little too complicated, so the Kool aid company added the sugar for you and sold that powder mixture to you in a big tin with a scoop. Kool aid was never quite the same after that.

I hear they put all kinds of shit in Kool Aid now.

 

Comment by just me | 2008-09-23 23:36:31

I only ever bought it once my little one wanted some… never again she was running around all over like something gone wrong!

It never entered my home again…

 

RSS Feed for This PostPost a Comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)