© 2010 jbjd

A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (3 of 3) is the final installment in the 3-part series describing the fraud pulled off at the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention in order to ensure Barack Obama would receive the nomination so that his name would appear next to the D on the general election ballot. The groundwork for the present article, “The Coup at the Convention,” was laid in the first 2 (two) installments, A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 3); and A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (2 of 3). Trust me, if you understand what got us here, to the convention, then you are now at the same jumping off point as those people who were determined to steal the nomination. Yep; just like you, from here on in, they were winging it, too. Because something they hadn’t anticipated happened at the start of the convention which could have derailed their best laid plans to obtain the nomination. Indeed, as I wasn’t there, it is only in retrospect I can explain to you what I later realized is about to go down, notwithstanding as it turns out, I was responsible for what happened next.

The Coup at the Convention

Judging by how hard they had fought to elbow Clinton out of the race at the beginning of the primary and caucus contests, powerful parties interested in placing Obama in the White House knew from the start, the only certain way to force this flawed candidate on the American people was to limit his exposure to public scrutiny by sewing up his nomination well in advance of the August 25 nominating convention. They failed, miserably. Indeed, while publicly maintaining since February, his nomination was a fait accompli; even they didn’t feel comfortable enough until August 14 that, having strong-armed a sufficient number of pledged delegates and paid off the rest, no matter what, they would pull off the nomination in an open roll call vote of pledged delegates from all states on the floor of the convention; to concede consistent with past practice the name of any other candidate seeking the nomination should also be formally entered into the roll.

Yes, they were confident on August 14 and for almost the next 11 (eleven) days that their Herculean investments in his candidacy over the past couple of years would pay off, better late than never. And in the end, even accounting for the open roll call vote of pledged delegates from every state, from the floor of the convention, he would walk away with the nomination.

Have Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) recruit Obama in the summer of 2006 to run against Clinton for the 2008 Presidential nomination? Check. Immediately thereafter, have DNC Chair Howard Dean rig the delegate apportionment process so as to ensure that Clinton, despite winning on account of real votes cast in state contests for her, would nonetheless lose and Obama, despite losing the actual vote count, would win? Check, check, and check. Have him appoint Pentacostal Preacher Leah Daughtry, DNC Chief of Staff, to be the CEO of the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention? Check. Have him make Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and 3rd in line of Presidential succession, the Chair of the 2008 Convention thus enabling her to control the nomination process (and after making him the nominee, to co-sign the Certification of his Nomination swearing to election officials he is Constitutionally eligible to be President to get them to print his name on the ballot in states whose laws only allow on the ballot the names of candidates who are legally qualified for the job)? Check.

Then, on August 25, the first day of the convention, something unexpected happened which began to unsettle his henchmen; and which, by Tuesday, August 26, the second night of the convention, had panicked them into pulling a bait and switch on the scheduled roll call vote of pledged delegates from all states on the floor of the convention, scrambling to preserve the chance that just through the use of that roll call, he could get the nomination.

That’s when they scrapped the scheduled open roll call vote of all states on the floor of the convention, simultaneously orchestrating a convoluted ploy affording them plausible deniability, they had not.

The ‘change’ in voting procedure, fashioned by both the Clinton and Obama camps Tuesday night, was rolled out to the press in Wednesday morning’s conference call. (Even the word “change” was never used.) Bill Burton, spokesperson for the Obama campaign, handed off the details to Jenny Backus; and she only prefaced her remarks by saying, she would “talk a little bit today, um, about some of the, um, process that you will see that will happen tonight, um, at the convention.”

Last night, convention secretary Alice Germond; ah, Jeff Berman, who is a senior adviser to the Barack Obama campaign; and Craig Smith who is a senior adviser to Hillary Clinton sent out a joint note to, um, all of the state delegation chairs with some information about, um, Wednesday’s roll call vote. Ah, basically, um, here’s the guidance that we can give you, ah, so far. Ah, last night and this morning, state delegations received vote tally sheets for their delegates. Um, throughout the day today they’ll be distributing those tally sheets to their delegates. Um, the cheat sheets will be completed by 4pm mountain time. Eh, today from about 3 to 5pm mountain time the voting and roll call procedure will happen. Um, the convention will gavel open at 3, ah, there’ll be, um, 3 nominating speeches, um, for Senator Clinton, a nominating speech and seconding speeches, ah, and then a nominating speech and 3 seconding speeches for Senator Obama. Ah, they will, ah, each candidate’s speeches will total, ah, no more than 15 minutes, so that’ll be about a half an hour of speeches. Once the speeches are concluded the vote tally sheets will be collected, ah, by the office of the secretary, ah, and then we will begin the roll call of the states and the delegation chair or her designee will announce the totals for each candidate. So, that’s the procedure how the roll call vote is gonna work today.

Um, and, ah, you can look forward to later this morning, ah, a joint statement from the Clinton and Obama office about who will be giving those nominating speeches, um, for each of us.


A reporter from BBC (whose name I did not get) asked, “…in reference to the roll call vote, I just wanted to confirm that there’s not going to be stoppage of, of any sort of states, that all 50 states will have their say and their vote tallies announced, right? There won’t be any kind of stopping?” Id.

Ms. Backus replied, “Um, the guidance that we’re giving you on the roll call vote is basically exactly what I just, ah, said to you right there. Um, it will go from, ah, 3 to 5pm mountain, ah, which is 5 to 7pm eastern, um, and that’s the procedure on how it’s gonna work.” Id.

Joe Manus, St. Louis Post Dispatch asked, “So the roll call will be at the beginning of tonight’s proceedings; and will the states be doing their unofficial tallies like this morning at the breaksfast?” Id.

“States will, um, begin to do their, um, unofficial tallies at the breakfast and throughout the day, um, and they will turn in those tally sheets, ah, this evening after either during or after, um, the nominating speeches before the call of the roll begins.” Id.

In sum, Ms. Backus told the press, pledged delegates will begin voting at their hotels this morning and throughout the day as delegation chairs distribute the “cheat sheets” to members of their delegations, only until 4:00 mountain time, when they are due to be delivered to the floor of the convention to be added into state totals which will be announced during the roll call of all states on the floor of the convention beginning at 3:00 mountain time.

Get it?

Delegates awoke on Wednesday, August 27, and shuffled off to another round of state delegation breakfasts where, in addition to their coffee and tea, they were now served up this bitter elixir from their delegation chairs. They would have to cast votes for their candidates after breakfast, in the hotel, behind closed doors, and then re-group on the floor of the convention.

Their response? Total confusion.

At least according to this account published in the Austin Chronicle at 1:33 on Wednesday afternoon, describing what had happened that morning when Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”), a super delegate who had committed to Obama before the end of the primary/caucus contests, announced the new plans to the Texas delegation. (All mistakes appear in original.)

Finally, a Roll Call Vote

Boyd Richie announced a change to the Roll Call Vote process at this morning’s Delegate Breakfast. After receiving our delegate credentials, we were directed to a small room in the west wing of the host hotel. Inside the room we presented our delegate credential and ID, then placed our president preference (Obama, Clinton, or Abstain) and signed our name. This was our official vote. The list will be copied and published then delivered to the Pepsi Center via a shuttle bus around 12:30pm (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

Mr. Richie stated that officials staying at other hotels would still have the opportunity to vote later today. (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

Chairman Richie was upset both visibility and emotionally when some delegates asked whether observers would be present during the voting process. “We’re all Democrats”, said Richie in an angry tone. Finally, after several interruptions from some delegates requesting an observer, he asked the Obama registered agent Ron Kirk and Hillary registered agent Garry Mauro whether they wanted observers. Registered agents are the official representatives for campaigns. Mr. Kirk said they [Obama delegates] were not interested in having observers. As he said this, some Obama supporters began to chant, “Unity, unity.” In place of Mr. Mauro, John Oeffinger represented the Hillary campaign and honored the request of Hillary delegates to assign observers. John then immediately scrambled about the ballroom to schedule observers in shifts.

Strangely, we’ve also been told that we’ll vote again this evening. Mr. Richie said he did not know the process for delegates that wish to change their vote from what they placed on this morning’s ballot. (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

After voting, we were sent to a table to obtain our seating assignment for this evenings Roll Call Vote at the Pepsi Center.

So, how many times do we vote? Which one counts? I guess we’ll find out tonight.


How many times do we vote?” “Which one counts?” Mr. Richie’s announcement there was a “change” in the voting procedure obviously left the Texas delegation with the impression, the ‘process’ used by the DNC to choose their Presidential nominee was ‘play it by ear.’

In contrast, that same morning, at 9:43, the Rocky Mountain News announced convention committee CEO Leah D. Daughtry described the voting process was ‘business as usual,’ pursuant to the ‘rules.’

Convention roll-call plans set for tonight

COLORADO CONVENTION CENTER — Each state at tonight’s session of the Democratic National Convention will announce the results of its delegate tally during a roll call that has been the source of much speculation and controversy this week.

Convention committee CEO Leah D. Daughtry said the roll call will take place as it has in previous conventions, despite speculations that a compromise between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton might result in a departure from the usual process.

The roll call is guided by the rules of the party,” Daughtry said at this morning’s convention press briefing. “It will proceed just as the rules dictate. (Emphasis added by jbjd.) Every state and every delegate will have the opportunity to vote. Everyone will be represented. Everyone will have their votes counted.”

The roll call will begin with each state announcing its delegate vote totals for the two Democratic candidates after a series nominating and seconding speeches for Clinton and Obama, Daughtry said.

Voting has already begun, as delegates began receiving tally cards this morning. (Emphasis added by jbjd.)


Guided by the rules of the party…just as the rules dictate?” Rules? What rules?

Certainly not the Delegate Selection Rules, 2, Participation, F:

In accordance with Article Nine, Section 12 of the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States, votes shall not be taken by secret ballot at any stage of the delegate selection


Or Article Nine, Section 12 of the Charter:

All meetings of the Democratic National Committee, the Executive Committee, and all other official Party committees, commissions and bodies shall be open to the public, and votes shall not be taken by secret ballot.)


This drivel points to why I said in COUP (2 of 3), it’s useless trying to reinstate order to the Democrat’s Presidential nominating process by falling back on the rules, regulations, and Charter of the Democratic Party.

By 12:53, Ben Smith at Politico was announcing Barack Obama’s campaign has reverted to plans for a traditional roll call on the convention floor… (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

There’s a bit of confusion about the plans for a roll call, and some Democrats say they’re dissatisfied by a process that has them voting in private, by state. But that’s the old-fashioned way, says my colleague Andy Glass, who’s covered these for years.


But whichever version of events you bought into – “just as the rules dictate”; “the old-fashioned way”; or ‘play it by ear’ – one thing was clear. From the outside looking in, it wasn’t easy to recognize these events for what they were: the signal that Obama’s warriers had decided at the last minute to scrub the scheduled open roll call vote of pledged delegates from all states on the floor of the convention, which was expected to have been followed by Clinton’s release of her pledged delegates, and then another vote after that, which was supposed to give him the nomination.

Incredible, huh. Thousands of eye witnesses in Denver, including the press, scrutinizing every detail of the goings on inside the convention, and no one asked why whoever was in charge had decided to scrap the open roll call of pledged delegates. Why? Because they lacked the information necessary to recognize what they were observing. So, what was this ‘thing’ that happened under everyone’s nose yet flew under the radar, so significant it caused Obama’s allies in the DNC to re-orient the nomination process at the last minute in order to hide votes for Clinton from her pledged delegates as the preferred means to guarantee his nomination?

Word had spread to the Clinton pledged delegates sent to the convention from those 13 vote binding states, including CA, that the laws in their states required them to hold fast to their candidate through at least the first round of voting at the convention; and that their Attorneys General had received complaints Obama’s people were subverting the law by trying to get those delegates to promise to switch their votes to him, even before they got to the convention. We know that at least one of those A’sG, Thurbert Baker (D-GA), instructed that state’s pledged delegates to obey the law. Consequently, these delegates were going to obey the law, and vote for her through at least the first round. Some, including Clinton pledged delegates from CA, even after that.

So, why was this such a big deal? BECAUSE OBAMA AND HIS CONSORTS HAD ONLY AGREED TO HOLD AN OPEN ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE FLOOR OF THE CONVENTION RELYING ON THE FACT, SEVERAL HUNDRED CLINTON PLEDGED DELEGATES FROM VOTE BINDING STATES WOULD HAVE NO IDEA THEY WERE ‘PLEDGED’ PLEDGED TO CLINTON WHEN THEY REACHED THE FLOOR OF THE CONVENTION. Thus, those pledged delegates who had already been successfully co-opted to switch their votes to him, added to those who would enthusiastically switch to him in the fabricated momentum of the occasion; plus those who would fatalistically give in to the feigned inevitability of his nomination, would easily put his numbers over the top.

But didn’t I say, in COUP (1 of 3), Obama’s agents would have known which states had vote binding laws before they twisted the arms of Clinton delegates in those states since the state delegate selection Plan sent to the RBC for approval had to include details of any state laws respecting the conduct at the convention of pledged delegates from that state? Yep; that’s what I said. So now you’re probably thinking, ‘well, jbjd, if Obama’s people knew about the laws in those states by looking at those delegate selection Plans then, wouldn’t any delegates seeking guidance as to their conduct at the convention by examining the state Plan, be able to read about the state’s vote binding status, too?’ Nope. Know why? Because there was nothing in those state Plans about vote binding laws. And now you are probably shaking your heads. Why did I say the Plans submitted to the RBC explain how Obama’s people knew in advance which states had vote binding laws if the Plans contain no information about vote binding laws!

To answer this question, you have to read the fine print in the RBC Regulations.

Section 2, Submission and Review of Plans, regulation 2.2, Formal Submission, reads, “Each State Party Committee shall include the following documentation with the submission of its Plan to the RBC…” “I., “… a copy of all state statutes reasonably related to the delegate selection process…” Id. Did you catch that? The rules don’t say, this documentation about special state laws regarding how pledged delegates must vote at the convention is a part of the state delegate selection Plan. The RBC rules only tell the state committee, when submitting the delegate selection Plan for our approval, you have to attach this additional information.

In other words, this additional information forwarded to the RBC by the state party about special state laws respecting party delegates – this would include laws spelling out how to submit to state election officials the name of the Presidential nominee to be printed on the state ballot – does not become a part of the accompanying state delegate Plan. Wanna see?

Here’s California’s approved 2008 Delegate Selection Plan. Nothing in either the Table of Contents or the body of the Plan, references any special laws requiring pledged delegates to vote for the candidate voters in that state elected them to represent, on the floor of the convention.

This means that pledged delegates wading through the various DNC documents for guidance as to how they should vote at the convention would only find this line on p. 19 in the DNC Call for the 2008 Convention:

All delegates to the National Convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them. (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

“Good conscience.” But nothing about the law!

Here’s just a sample of language I pulled together from the laws in some of those vote binding states.

“Each person selected as a delegate shall sign a pledge that the person will continue to support at the national convention the candidate for President of the United States the person is selected as favoring until 2 convention nominating ballots have been taken.” OR

“Each political party shall, on the first ballot at its national convention, cast this Commonwealth’s vote for the candidates as determined by the primary or party caucus.” KY

“Each delegate or alternate delegate to the national convention of his political party shall cast their vote on all ballots for the candidate who received this state’s vote.” OK

“Each delegate to the national convention shall use his best efforts at the convention for the party’s presidential nominee candidate who received the greatest number of votes in the presidential preference election until the candidate is nominated for the office of president of the United States by the convention.” AZ

“As a delegate to the national convention of the Democratic Party, I pledge myself to vote on the first ballot for the nomination of president by the Democratic Party as required by Section 1-8-60 NMSA 1978.” NM

“Delegates and alternates shall be bound to vote on the first ballot at the national convention for the candidate receiving the most votes in the primary.” VA

“The delegates to the national conventions shall be bound by the results of the preferential presidential primary for the first two (2) ballots and shall vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged.” TN

In an Opinion now appended to his state’s binding vote law, the words of the Attorney General of GA reach the heart of similar laws enacted in all of these states: “This section reflects the legitimate interest of the state in insuring orderliness in the electoral process, and it provides a means of presenting the political preferences of the people of this state to a political party.” GA

(Can you imagine how long it took me to research the election laws in all 50 states in order to find the 13 states that bound their delegates at the convention?)

The majority of pledged delegates from vote binding states were unaware of their special status coming into the convention. How can I prove this? And, more importantly, how do I know that news of their obligations under the vote binding laws of their states still managed to reach Clinton pledged delegates? And that this new found knowledge was a game changer to the roll call vote?

In the summer of 2008, I was only one of hundreds of citizen activists who became immersed in the machinations of the Presidential nominating process of the Democratic Party. As I previously explained, one of my contributions was to ‘discover’ and then publicize the existence of those 13 vote binding states. As I wrote in A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (2 of 3), my work did not immediately ignite the endorsement of people who could have spearheaded a massive public education campaign in advance of the convention. GA was the one state in which I and my team of Georgians were able to get out a concerted campaign to alert both Clinton pledged delegates and AG Baker, Obama’s agents were breaking the law. And, as a result, AG Baker reminded delegates in that state, “pledged” means pledged. Id. Eventually, in the days immediately preceding the convention, my work on vote binding states did attract the attention of members of the party who, previously unaware these laws existed, saw the strategic value of the work to support the Clinton campaign. Id.

But what I hadn’t yet told you, is that my work on vote binding states also attracted the attention of another citizen activist, from CA, who not only managed to get inside the convention, but who also had a hand in assembling packets of information that were distributed to all delegates. Guess what she slipped into these delegate packets? Yep; my materials on the laws regarding the votes of pledged delegates from vote binding states.

Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention, was a member of the CA delegation. She addressed the CA delegates at their first delegation breakfast on Monday, August 25. Listen as she not-so-subtly twisted arms to get Clinton pledged delegates to violate CA law. Imagine, the Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention, soliciting Clinton pledged delegates to abandon the will of the voters, in defiance of the law, in order to support her candidate of choice? Imagine being a Clinton pledged delegate sitting in the audience under the watchful eye of the powerful Madame Speaker; holding a packet of materials that informed you for the first time, you are from a vote binding state. How free do you suppose you would feel to question what she was saying, let alone to express disdain at what she was asking you to do?

YouTube Preview Image

Another member of the CA delegation receiving this information was Attorney Gloria Allred, a Clinton pledged delegate. Watch while she informs reporters when Monday’s breakfast was over, that fellow delegates had asked her to research whether the law required them to vote for Clinton on the first round of balloting. (Some confusion arose because CA election law applicable to either the D or the R Presidential preference primary is codified in separate sections. But D delegates are bound by law to the candidate voters elected them to represent, arguably until a candidate is nominated at the convention.) Ms. Allred makes a point of saying, she will vote for Clinton on the first round in order to carry out the will of the voters who elected her; but makes clear, she does not yet know whether such a result is required by law.

YouTube Preview Image

By Tuesday morning’s breakfast, Ms. Allred had researched CA election law. Here she is after breakfast, informally trying to get word out to Clinton pledged delegates, they are bound to vote for their candidate at the convention. (I wish I could see the papers she is waving around. Maybe one of these was my letter to AG Brown complaining Obama was poaching Clinton delegates in his state and asking him to intervene?)

YouTube Preview Image

Later that same day, speaking at the end of a rally to celebrate the 88th anniversary of women’s suffrage, the 19th Amendment, Ms. Allred, claiming she was denied the opportunity to formally address fellow delegates at breakfast, now informs the crowds, in CA, the primary is “binding.” She points out, ‘voting for Clinton is consistent with DNC rules which say, use your “conscience” to represent the voters who elected us, since they elected us to vote for Clinton…’

YouTube Preview Image

She reasons, ‘even if Hillary releases, we owe an obligation to the voters.’

YouTube Preview Image

That night, Pelosi, Obama, Dean, and Reid, et al. decided to call off the open roll call vote of all states scheduled to take place Wednesday evening on the floor of the convention.

So, instead of waiting until after the first round of voting during the open roll call of all states on the floor of the convention, Clinton released her delegates early Wednesday afternoon. AFTER THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING (albeit behind closed doors at the hotel). Now, technically, according to some of these vote binding laws, pledged delegates from vote binding states were free to vote for the candidate they in “good conscience” (from the DNC Delegate Selection Plan) concluded was a “fair reflection” (from the DNC Charter) of the will of the voters who (indirectly) elected them. And they might have, except for one thing: having already voted once, back at the hotel, they would have no opportunity to vote again.

This last minute early release of Clinton delegates from their pledges could have created another problem if it hadn’t also escaped detection. See, since Clinton did not release her delegates until Wednesday afternoon; when Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states voted at their hotels Wednesday morning, they had to vote for her according to the law. Thus, any vote totals from those 13 vote binding states that were then transmitted to the Secretary should have reflected the number of delegates appointed as the result of votes cast in the state for the candidate, at the time of the primary or caucus contest, right? Not surprisingly, they did not.

Here are the numbers of Clinton pledged delegates awarded as the result of votes voters cast for her in those vote binding states: AZ – 31, CA- 204, GA-27, IN-38, KY-37, MA-55, NH-9 NM-14, OH-74, OK-24, OR-21, TN-40, and VA-29. This makes a total of 609, just from those vote binding states. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-HF.phtml The total number of votes from Clinton delegates just from those vote binding states we saw ‘vote’ from the floor of the convention, before NY, should have been 415. But it wasn’t. Not even close. (The low number of Clinton votes becomes even more suspect when you consider, in addition to votes from Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states, the totals would also have included votes from Clinton pledged delegates who were not legally bound to vote for her but who, in “good conscience,” would have honored the voters who elected them by sticking to their candidate, at least on the first round.)

The DNC refuses to release an ‘official’ tally of votes cast in the hotels, by whom. I received an email from a KY Clinton pledged delegate who said her delegation chair, Jennifer Moore, ignored her request for a list of that state’s votes, too. Shortly after the convention, the DNC did release some kind of tally sheet that included ALL states, not just those states voting on the floor of the convention; but they rescinded that list shortly thereafter. The GreenPapers published that list, with links, that are now inoperative. In the 2 (two) years since the convention, the DNC has failed to post another list.

According to Andy Glass at Politico, “…there’s not even any formal mechanism within national party rules for each delegate’s vote to be recorded. What’s recorded is the vote of each state delegation.” Id.

The CA delegation passed. The reason? According to Don Frederick at the LATimes, “because a tally of its 441 votes had not been completed when the state’s name was called.” But hadn’t they already voted back at the hotel? (Evidently, Mr. Frederick is another one of those reporters who is unaware of the laws in those vote binding state. He writes, “Clinton did not receive a majority in any of the recorded tallies — and in most, Obama’s backing was overwhelming. But Clinton’s support was notable in a few instances, including Arizona (40 votes for Obama, 27 for her), Kentucky (36 for him, 24 for her) and Massachusetts (65 for him, 52 for her).” “Notable”? How about, ILLEGAL? AZ, KY, and MA are all vote binding states.)

This means, while we can establish which of Obama’s agents suborned Clinton pledged delegates in vote binding states to violate their pledge; we cannot determine which of those delegates ended up breaking the law. Including those pledged delegates who are PLEO‘s, or party leaders and elected officials, like mayors, governors, city councilors, and legislative leaders. And this brings us to the heart of the matter involving Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states: the unpledged PLEO’s, better known as super delegates.

See, here’s the thing. As long as pledged delegates from vote binding states remained unaware of their bound status, Obama could have managed to convert an only slight (contrived) lead in pledged delegates into a landslide win. Only, this landslide was in jeopardy once pledged delegates from vote binding states learned they were bound by the law. But so what? Even without any shenanigans with respect to any of the pledged delegates, based strictly on the number of pledged delegates awarded immediately after the primary and caucus contests ended; neither Clinton nor Obama had the requisite number of votes from pledged delegates alone to win the nomination. Certainly not on the first round. At some point, if the typical give and take expected of such political theater could not produce a nominee, the unpledged PLEO’s would have broken the impasse. And the majority of these unpledged PLEO’s had already come out publicly in support of Obama, even in states where Clinton had won the popular vote. In other words, whatever happened along the way, in the end Obama was set to run off with the nomination.

So, why the mad rush to take the nomination just from votes cast by pledged delegates?

Recall what I wrote in A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 3):

DNC rules provide if voting at the convention fails to support one candidate over the other then, special super delegates will add their votes to the totals to reach the number required for nomination. So they were also furiously pouring money into the PAC’s and war chests of these super delegates, in return for which the candidate received a public pledge of support positively correlated to the superior size of his financial investment.

The people who staged the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention needed the pledged delegates to pull off Obama’s nomination because they did not want you to see that the votes of those unpledged super delegates had been bought and paid for, well in advance of the convention, by his wealthy benefactors…

From OpenSecrets:

For those elected officials who had endorsed a candidate as of Feb. 25, the presidential candidate who gave more money to the superdelegate received the endorsement 82 percent of the time. In cases where Obama had made a contribution since 2005 but Clinton had given the superdelegate nothing, Obama got the superdelegate’s support 85 percent of the time. And Clinton got the support of 75 percent of superdelegates who got money from her but not from Obama. For this update to the Feb. 14 study the Center combined contribution data with a list of superdelegates and their endorsements compiled by The Politico as of Feb. 25.


…including Madame Pelosi, his biggest ‘vote fairy godmother’ of all.

From Dr. Lynette Long, in NoQuarter:

“Bought and Paid For! By Nancy Pelosi”

As Americans sat glued to their television sets watching the most hotly contested presidential primary in American history, pundits counted pledged delegates won in caucuses and primaries and discussed the highly prized superdelegates’ endorsements. Eventually it would be these superdelegates, Democratic officials, governors, and members of congress, who would determine the nominee, since neither contestant won enough pledged delegates in the 52 primary contests.

What the pundits forgot to tell the American public was that these superdelegates were doing some counting of their own. They weren’t counting how many of their constituents had voted for Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, but rather how much money was being put into their war chests by the Obama campaign and the Democratic hierarchy. This money, moved from one candidate to another via PAC’s, would determine their endorsements and ultimately the nomination….


And that’s why they pulled off the coup that hid hundreds of votes of Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states at the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention.


For readers expecting a sort of summation of the ‘lesson learned’ from all three installments of “A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH,” the main focus of which series was the fraud pulled off at the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention, I offer this.

“I can only imagine Clinton would have made a much better President than Obama but, based on how he obtained the nomination, I anticipated he would make a much better crook.” jbjd.

A lay person looking at this chart of delegates can easily read, the total number of delegates for either candidate fails to get the nomination. But Obama had bought off a sufficient number of these super delegates to help him steal the nomination. So, even with a real open roll call vote of all states from the floor of the convention, before the arm twisting and poaching, eventually, the super delegates would have had to intervene to break the impasse.
  • Sandi78

    jbjd, there’s an article in today’s Telegraph that may interest you…and everyone else! I want you to know I just posted all three parts of your investigation there.


  • Noogan
  • stodghie

    actally ellen she hasn’t been allowed to do that much. in fact i think they wanted her there as a scapegoat. who gives a rip when some fool calls you a name. i sure don’t. you see the choices aren’t as simple as you present them and prefer to think.

  • TeakWoodKite

    True that candymarl, after the first read of jbjd’s work, I was seeing Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman doing a film of this.

    Wonderful possibilities for the screen play.

    Educating the Masses?

  • TeakWoodKite

    “subject to disclosure of ‘public records,’ as if they were government officials.”

    Does any similar  law exist in any other state or is Texas unique?
    Second what enforce mechinism of disclosure considering the party is the “person” executing (or not) those laws of disclosure?

    I ask, because in reading the detailed volume of research you did, it appears that there is no law compelling the AG of Texas or any other state official such as Secratary of State or Election official to act on the prima facia fraud. If this were true BO would not be president.

  • AbigailAdams

    I’m not sure what your point is, confloyd. 

  • confloyd

    abigail, When did democrats start telling the truth??? Feinstein is a liar like the rest of them and all are on the kool aid. Do you really think Hillary would leave crying or what??? She’s tough, she left laughing because she knew she was going to go after him…..

    I bet Hillary has enough control not to let him see her disapointed.

  • Michelle

    jbjd-FYI I just entered into google’s search box “No Quarter-a Coup through and through” and it said 259,000 @ 6:10 pm

  • soetoro

    We are at war with Islam.

    Now if we don’t fight back, Islam will dominate the world. This frenzy protests by Islamic fundamentalists/towel-heads on burning of Koran proves that Islam is an intolerant and a retarded totalitarian ideology.

    We are not dealing with a peaceful religion but a doctrine which want the whole world to submit to it.

    This is no holy book but a subversive book out to kill the Constitution of America and democracy of the world.

    How many churches and how many innocent non-Muslims/MUslims have been killed by the mad mad radical Islamic  bast*ards in the name of that faked prophet, warlord/thug, robber/rapist/muderrer/paedophile and Allah?

    The evil Koran is no holy book but a subversive book. There is no room for this subversive/barbaric book on USA’s land or any of the non-Muslim lands- it belongs to the Arabic deserts, period!

  • jbjd

    HARP, received your several pings from the web site you posted above, addding in the fact, the research that was the basis for the CFP story by Mr. Williams came from me.  But the article still says, CFP broke the story.  How stupid that makes them look; since they printed their story in September 2009 and the duplicate certificates first appeared on my blog in January 2009.  And I got the document from Justin Riggs, who had obtained it in December (or maybe November) 2008 from HI election officials.  Indeed, he and I corresponded with HI election officials in December 2008 and January 2009 just to confirm their documents.  And I noticed, the specific language about Constitutional eligibility.  And that in their cover letter, they had mentioned a statute number.  Turns out, that statute was the HI statute mandating the language.  And I said that, on the blog.  But several months later, I used the same images to make another point.  And this time, JB Williams took a hold of it, and made it his own.  See, the chain of command for the Certification of Nomination document is HI election officials -> Justin Riggs -> jbjd, who saw the specific language in the Certification coupled with the statutory cite and realized, the language of the Certification is set by state law -> “jbjd” blog -> JB Williams -> CFP.   
    Also, FYI, in December 2008 and January 2009, Justin and I worked to compose a letter to Nancy Pelosi, asking on what documentary basis she had ascertained BO is a NBC.  I arranged to have that letter hand-delivered to NP in D.C.  
    So, you can stop sending me pings.

  • jbjd

    HARP, received your several pings from the web site you posted above, addding in the fact, the research that was the basis for the CFP story by Mr. Williams came from me.  But the article still says, CFP broke the story.  How stupid that makes them look; since they printed their story in September 2009 and the duplicate certificates first appeared on my blog in January 2009, after being obtained by Justin Riggs.  Indeed, he and I corresponded with HI election officials in December 2008 and January 2009 just to confirm their documents.  And I noticed, they had mentioned a statute number.  Turns out, that statute was the HI statute mandating the language.  And I said that, on the blog.  But several months later, I used the same images to make another point.  And this time, JB Williams took a hold of it, and made it his own.  See, the chain of command for the document is HI election officials -> Justin Riggs -> jbjd, who saw the specific language in the Certification coupled with the statutory cite and realized, the language of the Certification is set by state law -> “jbjd” blog -> JB Williams -> CFP. 

    Also, FYI, in December 2008 and January 2009, Justin and I worked to compose a letter to Nancy Pelosi, asking on what documentary basis she had ascertained BO is a NBC.  I arranged to have that letter hand-delivered to NP in D.C.

    So, you can stop sending me pings.

  • rosa

    yes ani, i too am happy to have Hillary as SoS . it is a comfort to know a competent person with diplomacy skills and knowledge of world leaders is working for the country. 

    she is more of a leader than  the knee jerk politicians .

  • jbjd

    Noogan, thank you for appreciating the work.  What really got me about Gloria Allred, especially in retrospect, is this.  Obviously, she had no idea about CA was a vote binding state until she reached the convention.  On Monday, she tells the press, other delegates asked her to check out the law.  But she said nothing about the information handed out to delegates by citizen volunteers, which included this information.  (And the primer on vote binding states had my copyright, “jbjd” on it.)  By the second day, Tuesday, she is the champion of getting out the news about CA being a vote binding state.  Again, she didn’t mention other vote binding states exist.  And, putting a gag on her mouth?  Maybe that cost credibility.  I wonder what would have happened had she complained to the press, NP is telling Clinton pledged delegates to vote Obama but this violates the law!

    All of these people with more access to the press than “jbjd”; but none of them seemed interested in exposing the lawlessness in the DNC.  If people like Ms. Allred wanted to keep the corruption ‘in-house,’ they could have told NP, either let us explain to the delegates, their rights; or else we will explain to the press.

  • Onofre’s arm

    Karma? Karma doesn’t play favorites, does it? Perhaps it was Karma that caught up with Hillary in ’08.

  • EllenD

    I LOVED Barbara Jordan. She was a giant in a field of midgets,

  • EllenD

    Perhaps you can put up a fund on your website for self-publishing? Then you can also sell it through Amazon as an e book. If it gets noticed – and we all will promote it – it will be picked up by a Publisher.

  • Michelle

    Although I am from Chicago I have no knowledge of sports, therefore not a sports fan so I couldn’t do a sports analogy if my life depended on it. One thing I do notice about sports fan is their concept of fair play, they will argue to death if a play is called wrong. This is what I found missing in the DNC anything remotely resembling justice and fair play in addition to not playing by their own rules. Congress seems to have little fits over steroid use etc. involving athletes but can’t check into this?? More weird.

  • EllenD

    Great idea!

  • EllenD

    Dead on! ctfsh.

  • EllenD

    she should have stayed in the senate and voiced opposition to all of this

    Sure. And be labelled a sore loser. instead of now being regarded as an International Statesman.

  • EllenD

    Anne, most polls showed, BO supporters would vote for HRC in much greater numbers than HRC supporters would vote for him. 

    I don’t believe that poll would be the case with AA. voters. Look at their voting records. The Clintons were already being painted as racists. There would have been the story that they “stole” the election from this wonderful educated clean black guy. RACISM!!!! Demonstrations in the street. RACISM!!!! Maybe some riots if the Rupublicans were lucky. RACISM!!! That was what Hillary was facing.
    Look, I just finished watching the Ground Zero Imam saying that Muslim radicals would attack us if we DIDN’T build the damned thing now. In effect threatening and blackmail.
    I an SO SICK of this stuff! But I have no doubt that is what Pelosi and Dean were selling at the convention. It was inevitable from the first minute that a “historic first” black candidate was announced. You couldn’t turn him down no matter how bad he was. RACISM!!!
    All you could do is let his candidacy play out and hopefully innoculate this country against this racism cr*p. (You can see how well that is working!)

  • creeper

    “The joke was on the Washington Press Corps, which suspected the meeting but was camped outside the wrong house.”

    No, it wasn’t.  The joke was on us.

  • creeper

    The day an unknown AA congressman was selected to give the keynote address at the Dem convention in 2004 was actually the day he was handed the 2008 nomination.  Everything in between was just window-dressing.

  • creeper

    But, lorac, we didn’t need her at State.  We needed her in the Senate, working to keep Barry from the destruction he’s wreaking.  She left us for him.  At least that’s the way I see it.

    The very fact that she chose SoS over the Senate tells me that she subscribes to Barry’s one-world view…that global politics trump national interests.  We may be getting along better with the rest of the world but we’re disintegrating as a country.  I don’t see that as progress nor do I laud Clinton for her part in it. 

    I suppose when we come crawling to India and China with our hands out, Hillary’s efforts may help.  Somehow, that’s scant consolation.

  • Noogan

    Wow, jbjd, you’ve done such an extraordinary job documenting the history of what happened, and I appreciate it so much; clearly the research is monumental. And, I understand your investment in all this work. But I don’t understand why you’re so hostile in your responses to Harp; I don’t get the impression that Harp is trying to undermine you intentionally. 

    At any rate, thanks so much for all your work. It’s amazing, and I appreciate it so very much. It’s outrageous what they did; I watched it closely as it unfolded, and I remember Gloria Allred’s efforts quite well, because at the time, I hoped it might serve as a turning point. But, as you point out, the machinations and manipulations were so broad and deep, it wasn’t to be. 

  • jbjd

    TWK wrote, “if this was written in Latin, even Ceaser would get it.”

    Is this original?  If so, I will re-use it. 

  • arabella trefoil

    I agree with AbigailAdams.

  • AbigailAdams

    Soetoro,  I really understand how anger and concern can color the pastor’s decision to do this, but I feel a need to stand up and say this isn’t a Christian act, not at all.  Something that is heaping bad ju ju on the heads of Muslims in the U.S. is their silence on extreme Islam.  Unfortunately, it is being taken as tacit approval.  In the end, it may just be their tacit approval, but I don’t think we can make that assumption.  I don’t like to see someone coopting the Christian religion, making it a justification for acts such as these.  If anyone else has scriptural support of this, I’d like to see it, but I’m pretty sure it’s not there.  New Covenant only, please. 

  • arabella trefoil

    jbjd – Now I’m crying too. Your son sounds awesome. A s you know, I have a profoundly autistic brother. He can’t function on his own in society. But he is very smart, and funny, and creative. And I love him dearly. He has made a major difference in my life.

    Hearing Temple Grandin speak was an emotionally overwhelming experience. I think you know what I mean. I can’t explain it.

  • AbigailAdams

    I would have liked to been a fly on barry’s face, uh I mean the wall, at the meeting between him and Clinton in June, 08.  Remember this meeting:

    “Feinstein told reporters Clinton and Obama were laughing as they left the house. ”


  • soetoro

    Obama is now being ordered by the Indonesian President to stop the burning of Koran in Gainesville.

    This Indonesian mother fcuker thought the US is like Indonesia where Obama can do whatever he pleases as in Indonesia!

    Burn the evil Koran to ashes, baby!


    Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or
    refuse to pay Jizya tax (9:29)

    * Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable (3:85)

    * The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them (9:30)

    Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or
    refuse to pay Jizya tax (9:29)

    * Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable (3:85)

    * The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them (9:30)


  • Ani

    This is amazing — if Hillary would have stayed in the Senate, she would have been drowned out, declared a sore loser for voicing any opposition to “The One”, not made any headway and been branded and damaged with all his idiotic domestic policy. 

    As SoS, we have a more than competent, hard working adult representing us abroad and at least she is respected by all leaders she works with.  I’d still much rather have her working on behalf of our country trying her best to mitigate the damage of his naive foreign policy (which she has already been able to do).  Sometimes one has to look at the bigger picture.  She has still accomplished a lot more in this position than by being shouted down in the Senate by those backstabbers or by leaving and skulking in a corner.

    Just my .02.

  • beachan

    Wrong Jackie.  It’s only just begun.  Karma is going to kick Obama and most of the Democratic party in the ass for their nefarious actions of 2007 and 2008. 

  • beachan

    Thanks jbjd for all your hard work in exposing this… usurption of the democratic process by the less than Democratic party.  I blame them, but I blame the media even more, for never questioning the process.  They had to know that things were being done to save BO’s ass, and yet they sat on their hands.  They have no credibility left, just like BO.

  • beachan

    I think she looks tired because she works harder than anyone else, and I am happy she is there for all of us.

  • AbigailAdams

    I don’t understand your request, My Site.  Sara Palin?

  • Talk2ThePaw

    I don’t see the leadership of the DNC allowing it to be fixed.  They are headed in a direction leading to socialism/marxism and the depth of this movement within the party is too deep.  the DNC needs to crash and burn and a new party take it’s place.

  • HARP

    What bug crawled up your ass?