See, I ask because I remember not too long ago, your party, under your leadership, did a pretty fair job of warring on women, too. You, personally, supported a far, far less qualified, experienced man for the highest office in the land over the far, far more qualified, experienced, smarter woman.

Who could forget this exchange between then-Speaker Pelosi and Greta van Susteren after the Democrats, especially Pelosi, managed to drum Clinton right out of the race? I know I can’t forget it:

[snip] VAN SUSTEREN: Let me first focus for a second on Senator Clinton. She is back on the Hill today, and many people email me and say that she is the victim of sexism–not all, but many. Did sexism play a role in this election for her, number one? And number two, I know this morning you were quoting as saying that you, sometimes, have encountered sexism.

PELOSI: I think every woman who is making progress in gaining power is probably a victim of sexism. I can’t document what happened in the presidential campaign as I am too busy being Speaker of the House and running my own races for Congress to retain and grow our Democratic majority in the House.(Emphasis mine.)

But I do not think that there is any question that there is some evidence that there was sexism in the campaign, but I can’t tell you if that is the reason why Senator Clinton won or lost.

She made a great showing. She advanced to the cause of women enormously. We were thrilled with her candidacy, not just because she is a woman, but because she is a woman with great intellect, great dedication, great stamina, that she proved she could be president of the United States.

But there was an election, and I think that Senator Clinton benefited greatly by the enthusiasm of women, there is no question about that. And I do not know what the impact of the sexism and was. I know it is a sign of insecurity on those who exercise it. I do not know what the political impact of it was. [snip]

Well, former Speaker Pelosi, let me just remind you of the scope of sexism then-Senator Clinton received, and other women, as well:

So, yeah – there was just a bit of a war against women in 2008, one perpetrated by the very ones now decrying a “war against women.” Pelosi herself contributed to it by her very actions toward Hillary Clinton, and her very support for the man who ran a sexist campaign against Hillary Clinton.

Are the Republicans above being sexist? Of course not. But they should also not be singled out for a “war against women.” Democrats share plenty to blame in that regard. Using the whole issue of choice as a constant stick to keep women in line while the top Democrat, Obama, invites members of the then-outlawed, Sharia-law demanding, “Modesty police” directing Muslim Brotherhood, while attacking OTHERS is just a bit of a stretch. At least it is for me.

How about you?

That’s the question raised by David Fletcher of the LGBT Mentoring Project of the Learn Act Build Program at the LA Gay and Lesbian Center. Mr. Fletcher’s findings have been documented in this article in the LA Times, Behind the numbers of Prop. 8: It’s crucial to understand the data about Prop. 8′s victory before launching another attempt to legalize gay marriage..

Huh – and here I thought we already knew the answer to that question, as I wrote back in November 0f 2008: Obama and his supporters. That’s the short answer, anyway. Obama remains opposed to same-sex marriage, after all. That is also the answer to how Proposition (or Amendment) 2 passed in Florida that election, too, a law far more restrictive regarding the LGBT community, but one that is rarely, rarely mentioned, even though it garnered 62% of the vote.

But here is the point Mr. Fletcher wishes to make:

[snip] After the election, a misleading finding from exit polls led many to blame African Americans for the loss. But in our new analysis, it appears that African Americans’ views were relatively stable. True, a majority of African Americans opposed same-sex marriage, but that was true at the beginning and at the end of the campaign; few changed their minds in the closing weeks.

The shift, it turns out, was greatest among parents with children under 18 living at home — many of them white Democrats.

The numbers are staggering. In the last six weeks, when both sides saturated the airwaves with television ads, more than 687,000 voters changed their minds and decided to oppose same-sex marriage. More than 500,000 of those, the data suggest, were parents with children under 18 living at home. Because the proposition passed by 600,000 votes, this shift alone more than handed victory to proponents. [snip]

There is more to this report, including wrong-way voting which affected both sides, though that seems to be the case more for those who OPPOSED same sex marriage actually voting for it (500,000). You can read the rest of the article HERE, and the full report at prop8report.org.

Yes, it seems 687,000 people shifted their votes in the final weeks. And those people were mainly Democrats. Is Mr. Fletcher really surprised by this? I have been saying for some time now that the DNC is not as “gay-friendly” as they would like us to believe. Again, Obama himself opposes same-sex marriage. So, the outcome should not be a huge surprise, at least not to me. Curious that it seems to be a surprise for Mr. Fletcher.

I find it interesting that Mr. Fletcher made a point of claiming it is not the fault of African Americans – entirely, that is. He seems to want to take the heat off of the African American community while having to acknowledge that, while their numbers may not have changed that much from polls before the vote to the vote itself, they still voted FOR Prop 8. Um, is that revised look at the data supposed to be a comfort to those affected by this votes?

Regardless, I have been saying for almost two years now that it was the Democrats, in both California AND Florida, who voted to suppress our right to marry. It’s a fact, Jack, no matter how one looks at the data. Sad, but true.

While we are talking about Democrats and votes, guess what the Democratic Party has decided to keep? Oh, you could see this coming a mile away: Democratic Party to Keep Controversial Superdelegates: A reform effort to take away party bigwigs’ presidential-nominating power suffers a setback..

“A reform effort…suffers a setback”? Uh, yeah – one could say that, but that is if one was ever foolish enough to believe the Democratic “bigwigs,” which includes Obama, by the way, were ever, ever going to give up that power in the first place.

Oh, sure, Obama made noises about abolishing the Superdelegates after he bullied them into giving him the nomination (along with votes for Hillary which the RBC did), as this article reports:

[snip] After Obama secured the party’s nomination, he urged the DNC to create a commission to examine superdelegates’ influence and other shortcomings in the nomination process. The Democratic Change Commission (whose members included Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, and House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina) took a tough stance. Superdelegates, it recommended, should be required to vote for a candidate assigned to them, based on the results of their state’s caucus or primary. [snip]

After Obama secured the party’s nomination, he urged the DNC to create a commission to examine superdelegates’ influence and other shortcomings in the nomination process. The Democratic Change Commission (whose members included Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, and House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina) took a tough stance. Superdelegates, it recommended, should be required to vote for a candidate assigned to them, based on the results of their state’s caucus or primary. [snip]

Let’s just look at the plethora of Obama sycophants listed right there. Are you seriously trying to make me believe that if Obama wanted this Superdelegate thing changed, it wouldn’t be? Spare me already. Oh, he wants to keep it the same – he wouldn’t be where he is today without the Superdelegates (not to mention Convention delegate, voter, and caucus fraud, but hey – no need to be picky, right?).

And the outcome of the proposed change? You know it – you knew it from the get-go. They said NO:

[snip] But the rules committee took a dim view of this proposal. While endorsing recommendations to dilute the superdelegates’ influence (mostly by increasing the number of ordinary delegates), it quietly nixed the redefinition of their voting powers at it July 10 meeting. How quietly? Enough that even some members of the change commission hadn’t yet heard about it when NEWSWEEK spoke to them last week. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

All of us who were paying attention May 31, 2008, who watched as the Democratic Party revealed its true colors right before our eyes, knew damn well the Rules and Bylaws Committee would never, ever willingly give up such a great tool for overturning the will of the voters. These days, that’s just how the Democrats roll.

I am so glad Mr. Fletcher made it clear that it is Democrats who voted FOR Prop 8, though we knew that already. But hey – never hurts to get a reminder, eh?

And we got another reminder from the RBC this week, too. How we vote, for what we vote, for whom we vote, one thing is clear – the Democratic Party does not stand for what it says it does: it is not the party of the people. And it damn sure is not the party that cares about one person, one vote. Glad the RBC made that crystal clear one more time for those who missed it a couple of years ago.

Like I said, these days, this is just how the Democratic Party rolls. I expect we will see more of the same in 2012, but then again, with this bunch, I never expected anything different. How about you?

UPDATE: As you may have heard by now, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughan R. Walker ruled that Prop. 8:

[snip]…violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice. His ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court. [snip]

I am sure there will be more about this in the coming days. But, WOW!! Good news!

UPDATE #2: Just in case you were wondering if, maybe, just maybe, this reversal by Judge Walker has had an effect on Obama’s stand against same sex marriage, the answer would be No. Obama continues to oppose same-sex marriage. Oh, but he supports us. Yeah. Right.

The seed for the first Woman’s Rights Convention was planted in 1840, when Elizabeth Cady Stanton met Lucretia Mott at the World Anti-Slavery Convention in London, the conference that refused to seat Mott and other women delegates from America because of their sex. Stanton, the young bride of an antislavery agent, and Mott, a Quaker preacher and veteran of reform, talked then of calling a convention to address the condition of women. Eight years later, it came about as a spontaneous event.

In July 1848, Mott was visiting her sister, Martha C. Wright, in Waterloo, New York. Stanton, now the restless mother of three small sons, was living in nearby Seneca Falls. A social visit brought together Mott, Stanton, Wright, Mary Ann McClintock, and Jane Hunt. All except Stanton were Quakers, a sect that afforded women some measure of equality, and all five were well acquainted with antislavery and temperance meetings. Lucretia Mott Fresh in their minds was the April passage of the long-deliberated New York Married Woman’s Property Rights Act, a significant but far from comprehensive piece of legislation. The time had come, Stanton argued, for women’s wrongs to be laid before the public, and women themselves must shoulder the responsibility. Before the afternoon was out, the women decided on a call for a convention “to discuss the social, civil, and religious condition and rights of woman.”

To Stanton fell the task of drawing up the Declaration of Sentiments that would define the meeting. Taking the Declaration of Independence as her guide, Stanton submitted that “all men and women had been created equal” and went on to list eighteen “injuries and usurpations” -the same number of charges leveled against the King of England-”on the part of man toward woman.”

You have to love the symmetry with which Stanton crafted the “Declaration of Sentiments.” And what an interesting choice of words for the Declaration, isn’t it? Stanton didn’t stop there:

Stanton also drafted eleven resolutions, making the argument that women had a natural right to equality in all spheres. The ninth resolution held forth the radical assertion that it was the duty of women to secure for themselves the right to vote. Elizabeth Cady Stanton afterwards recalled that a shocked Lucretia Mott exclaimed, “Why, Lizzie, thee will make us ridiculous.” Stanton stood firm. “But I persisted, for I saw clearly that the power to make the laws was the right through which all other rights could be secured.”

The convention, to take place in five days’ time, on July 19 and 20 at the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Seneca Falls, was publicized only by a small, unsigned notice placed in the Seneca County Courier. “The convention will not be so large as it otherwise might be, owing to the busy time with the farmers,” Mott told Stanton, “but it will be a beginning.”

A crowd of about three hundred people, including forty men, came from five miles round. No woman felt capable of presiding; the task was undertaken by Lucretia’s husband, James Mott. All of the resolutions were passed unanimously except for woman suffrage, a strange idea and scarcely a concept designed to appeal to the predominantly Quaker audience, whose male contingent commonly declined to vote. The eloquent Frederick Douglass, a former slave and now editor of the Rochester North Star, however, swayed the gathering into agreeing to the resolution. At the closing session, Lucretia Mott won approval of a final resolve “for the overthrowing of the monopoly of the pulpit, and for the securing to woman equal participation with men in the various trades, professions and commerce.” One hundred women and men signed the Seneca Falls Declaration-although subsequent criticism caused some of them to remove their names.

How telling is that, that no woman felt “capable of presiding” at their own Rights Convention? Holy smokes. At least there were some supportive men there, including Lucretia Mott’s husband, to step up. But not everyone was supportive:

The proceedings in Seneca Falls, followed a few days later by a meeting in Rochester, brought forth a torrent of sarcasm and ridicule from the press and pulpit. Noted Frederick Douglass in the North Star: “A discussion of the rights of animals would be regarded with far more complacency by many of what are called the wise and the good of our land, than would be a discussion of the rights of woman.”

But Elizabeth Cady Stanton, although somewhat discomforted by the widespread misrepresentation, understood the value of attention in the press. “Just what I wanted,” Stanton exclaimed when she saw that James Gordon Bennett, motivated by derision, printed the entire Declaration of Sentiments in the New York Herald. “Imagine the publicity given to our ideas by thus appearing in a widely circulated sheet like the Herald. It will start women thinking, and men too; and when men and women think about a new question, the first step in progress is taken.”

Stanton, thirty-two years old at the time of the Seneca Falls Convention, grew gray in the cause. In 1851 she met temperance worker Susan B. Anthony, and shortly the two would be joined in the long struggle to secure the vote for women. When national victory came in 1920, seventy-two years after the first organized demand in 1848, only one signer of the Seneca Falls Declaration-Charlotte Woodward, a young worker in a glove manufactory -had lived long enough to cast her ballot.

What a day that must have been for Charlotte Woodward, but how sad it took 72 years for women to get the right to vote after Seneca Falls, and that she was the only remaining one able to cast her vote. Still, what a joy that must have been for her. Can you imagine it?? WOw.

Let’s just see how far we have come in the past 161 years:

We have come nowhere near far enough. I can only imagine what Mott, Stanton, and the others, would have thought of this past primary season. On the one hand, no doubt, they would be thrilled that a woman would win the popular vote, would win almost all of the big states, many by a landslide. On the other, they most likely would have seen the treatment of that woman (and Sarah Palin, too), as more of the same. Forced by the powers-that-be to give up delegates she won fair and square for the inexperienced, younger man, forced to play by a different set of rules at the Convention than anyone else EVER, a different kind of convention from Seneca Falls, that’s for sure. It was one that failed to live by its OWN rules in order to put this woman firmly in her place. No doubt, what happened this past year would feel all too familiar to them. And to too many of us.

My deepest appreciation to these women who began this process. We have come a ways from that Convention 161 years ago, but we have far, far to go to achieve real equality in this country. One thing I do know – no one is going to hand it to us. We must keep fighting, like Hillary Clinton kept fighting in the face of the naysayers. And maybe next time, the best person, who happens to be a woman, will actually win…

This is not about Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, or even US Senator, or First Lady of the USA, or even First Lady of Arkansas. Not even Hillary Clinton, “Top 100 Attorneys in the USA,” first ever student valedictorian of Wellesley, or any of that. Nope. This is about Hillary Clinton, the child. From ABC News, Kirit Radia gives us this story, Hillary Clinton the Tomboy and Her “Ah-Ha” Moment.

This is the story of how she CAME to be all of those things mentioned above:

In an appearance at the Women’s Museum in Dallas on Friday, a transcript of which was released over the weekend, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke candidly about the challenges she faced in breaking the glass ceiling, and referenced her run for the presidency last year.

Clinton revealed that she was “sort of a tomboy” when she was a young girl. “I did love to play sports and played with a lot of the boys in my neighborhood,” she said. She said the experience instilled a thirst for competition that served her well later.

“I wanted to be a baseball player,” she told an amused audience. “I wanted to be a journalist. I know you’ll never believe that.”

I can sure understand that. I had three brothers, so a built-in team there, but also the boys across the street. We played football – TACKLE football, that is, basketball, soccer, you name it, I played it. And I loved it. Still do love sports, for that matter.

But can’t you just see the young Hillary at a baseball game , or listening to it on the radio, or watching it on TV, cheering her team on (Cubs or Yankees – and yes, you CAN have two different favorite teams – one’s in the National League – Cubs, and one’s in the American League – Yankees. Makes perfect sense to this Braves/Yankees fan!)? I sure can. No doubt, she brought the same level of enthusiasm to her love of baseball that she brings to the work she has been doing as an adult.

But her dreams didn’t end there:

Clinton (told) the story about her aspirations to be an astronaut, one of her earliest encounters with the glass ceiling.

“I think I was thirteen or so, and so I wrote to NASA to ask how I could become an astronaut. And I got a response back which was, ‘We’re not interested in women astronauts,’” she said.

She spoke of the obstacles she faced in pursuing her professional and academic goals.

“When we were growing up, there were just so many overt and implied obstacles to what young women could aspire to. There were certainly schools you couldn’t go to, scholarships you couldn’t apply for – jobs that were not available to you,” Clinton said.

Again, I can relate. Not just in sports – Title IX came too late for me – but in professions like the ministry. My own father did not support women’s ordination, but I went to seminary anyway.

Sadly, there are still too many obstacles to women, Clinton’s being Secretary of State notwithstanding:

“You really have to prepare. And you have to get knocked down, and you have to pick yourself up, and you have to keep going,” she added later.

Clinton referenced her lost bid for the Democratic nomination last year. When asked about an “ah-ha” moment that she was going to be able to meet the lofty goals she’d set for herself, Clinton said there was another “ah-ha” moment of another manner.

“I had an ah-ha moment that I wasn’t going to be the Democratic nominee for the presidency of the United States,” she said as the audience laughed (according to the transcript). “That’s a kind of different ah-ha moment.”

Uh huh. That “ah-ha” moment was probably more of the “I can’t believe I actually have more votes, more experience, and won every major state except Illinois – and I know that it does NOT border Arkansas like Obama thinks it does – have devoted my LIFE to this party, put up with all kinds of crapola, and they are STILL picking the inexperienced, unqualified guy over ME!” But that’s just a guess on my part.

But Secretary of State Clinton carries on, with a passion for people and the issues we face rarely seen among politicians. And she continues the good fight for women to, some day, truly have equality, a dream that took quite a beating this past election season, unfortunately. But she will keep carrying on, like she always does, working for us. Some day, some how, we will get there. We CAN get there, we MUST get there, and we WILL get there, when we have leaders like Hillary Clinton. Thank you, Madame Secretary.

Thank you for modeling a woman “standing in her own skin.” The importance of doing so cannot be downplayed. And thank you for the “Ah-Ha!” moments you brought to all of us this past election season. You showed them all – the naysayers, the ones who bullied you, who put you down, who cheated you out of your votes, all of them. You stood with us, and we will stand with you.

America’s First Gay President Concludes Historic Second Term

WASHINGTON—President George W. Bush was unusually reflective in the final weeks of his administration, taking time during speeches and press conferences to look back on key decisions, expound on his legacy, and tout his role in paving the way for the nation’s first African-American president by serving eight years as its first openly gay president.

“I’m inspired by our great country’s willingness to look past the color of a man’s skin—or, in my case, his overt homosexuality—and elect him based on his ability to lead,” Bush told reporters following his meeting with president-elect Barack Obama on Nov. 10. “I’ve always been proud of my homosexuality, and I am so proud of the United States.”

Bush added, “Thank you, America, for taking a chance on an openly gay man from Texas: tight jeans, cowboy hats, and all.”

Well, Bush DID have that “Brokeback Mountain” look when he was out on the range…

Recalling how he worried during his first campaign that voters were not ready to put a gay man in the White House, Bush said he was “shocked and overjoyed” to win in 2000, and could not have done it without homo-sexual adviser Karl Rove, his strong base of closeted gay ultra-conservative supporters on the Christian right, and his “best friend” Laura.

“While I tried to be commander in chief first and a homosexual man second, I knew that everything I did would be judged through the lens of ‘America’s first gay president,’” Bush said during an interview with ABC’s Charles Gibson broadcast Dec. 1. “Looking back, my personal need to prove my man-hood definitely influenced my actions. The arrogant swagger, invading Iraq, my ruthless support of the death penalty—heck, even setting back gay rights 25 years—all of it seems so silly now.”

Former press secretary Ari Fleischer agreed, saying that Bush carefully cultivated his image as a masculine, simple-minded, heterosexual male in order to combat his insecurities about appearing weak before the international community.

“Believe me, sister, he overcompensated with a capital ‘compensated,’” Fleischer said. “But when the cameras stopped rolling and the podium was put away, he was just fabulous. We had a fabulous, fabulous time.”

While many will argue for generations about Bush’s political impact, all seem to agree that his presidency at last proved to a once-disenfranchised group that anything is possible.

“I never thought I’d see this in my lifetime,” said David Nevin, a 58-year-old homosexual living in New York. “And I probably won’t again because he was a terrible f***ing president who ruined it for all of us.”

Added Nevin, “What a bitch.”

I reckon that pretty much sums it up! “What a bitch!”

Back to reality for just a minute, and Obama’s Invocation choice, alert NQ reader, Athena the Warrior provided a link to an Advocate article about Obama picking Rev. Rick Warren, out of all the THOUSANDS of qualified ministers in this country, Rev. Rick Warren, the pro-Prop 8 and anti-choice minister, to be a part of his big to-do in DC. Lemme tel you what, the vast majority of comments were from people who were HOT under the collar about Obama’s treatment. Now, you know I think it is their own damn fault for ever thinking for one MINUTE that Obama cared one whit for the GLBT community. And not all of the people there voted for Obama. But many did, and they are already seeing the errors of their ways. So check out some of their comments. Very interesting.

And, to those who jumped on the Obama Bandwagon, like Joe Salmonese of the HRC, I say, SHAME ON YOU! Shame on you for not supporting the one candidate who walks the walk when it comes to the GLBT community. The one whose praises you sang just last year. That’s right, it was Hillary Clinton. Even if they did support her initially, then throw their hands up once Obama was declared the victor by the DNC’s RBC, I say shame on you for not standing up for JUSTICE, for what was RIGHT, and against playing fast and loose with the rules when it suited them. Same to all of those women’s groups who jumped on that bandwagon, too, and for what, to be cool? To get money? Because you got “caught up” in the moment?? Please. Spare me already. There is no excuse for ignoring the reality that was right in front of your faces – Obama’s anti-gay associates. Obama’s nuanced language over gay marriage. Obama’s continuing flip-flopping on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” And the list goes on. You chose to ignore the reality. You chose to back the man who has NOT backed you up over the woman who did. So now you are upset. Huh. Imagine that.

Sheesh. Enough of you people – I am too through with you all who thought that Obama was on your side. Enjoy the laugh about Bush. Hey, if you think about all of his little outfits he put on throughout the course of his presidency – the cowboy outfits; his flight suit; his wizard outfit with Boy Toy, Putin; elf clothes – oh, no wait – that was a JibJab production…You get my point. So, in that spirit, and in recognition of George Bush being the “first homosexual president” (who just bailed out Detroit), I leave you with this:

We decided to make it a “black ops” mission. We invaded the Pepsi Center. We borrowed credentials from delegates, DNC members and others. It was a gas. The funny thing is that the Secret Service stood right near us while we “borrowed” the credentials. Some had arena credentials and others had floor credentials. Two group members spent time in a beer company’s sky box.

I had the opportunity to meet Alan Colmes (Sean Hannity) would have been more fun to meet. Alan Colmes and I e-mailed for sometime about veterans issues and the VA. I introduced myself. I reminded him of our e-mails. He said “I think I remember”. I am sure he didn’t but….I would have found him more credible if he didn’t feel the need to lie!

It was a momentous evening as Hillary was about to speak. Her speech was wonderful but heartbreaking at times. I alternately laughed and cried. The tears were the heaviest when she talked about the “Sisterhood of the Traveling Pantsuits”. I was a member of that sisterhood. I traveled through four states for her, the last was Montana. That was the most incredible experience for me since I ran the Veterans for Hillary Tour.

As I had a chance to really observe the Pepsi Center one thing struck besides the fact the venue was much too small (I think the fire marshall should have just kicked everyone out!) and that was its inaccessibility to disabled folks. At the entrances to the arena seats I counted a very few wheelchairs. Got me wondering….. Does the DNC really encourage participation by disabled folks? I guess they really care about the Affirmative Action written into their own delegation selection process! (NOT!)

I was discussing the sad state of affairs about disabled access when I was accosted and shoved away from a camera crew by a super delegate in a bright lime green suit! (And these people are picked to represent the Democratic Party!!) that was trying to interview me. What a nasty lady? The Democratic Party needs to invest in a Miss Manners book or two, make it mandatory reading for the next convention!

When Hillary’s speech ended it was like a herd of unity jackasses running for the nearest exits. It was almost as if someone had fired the gun at the start of a jacka$$ race! If you weren’t moving fast enough, the people literally body checked evryone in their way. Hey when did RUDE become a central part of the Democratic Party?

I know it all seems a little over the top! It gets even better….. I am waiting outside while the group reformed, when I suddenly turned around and ended up looking Dick Morris right in the eyes. I stuck my hand out….introduced myself, shook his (and bit my tongue….I knew something irrelevant and not nice was going to come out of my mouth)….. well I smiled, stumbling over my words and said I watch you all the time…. And the whole time all I was thinking why couldn’t I meet Terry McAuliffe or even the Big Dawg?

My night at the Pepsi Center was wonderful! I enjoyed Hillary’s speech but why oh why did I have to meet Dick Morris of all people?

She discussed the roll call vote and ballots.

NancyA: Last night a Texas Delegate told me the “Roll Call” vote was being held in secret in hotel rooms. What have you been told?

Cindy: We will receive a “ballot” at the Breakfast Meeting Wednesday morning for our roll call vote. And then we will meet with Hillary. I am unsure what will happen in the General Session, whether we will re-vote.

NancyA: Have you found a great deal of pressure to vote for Obama?

Cindy. I have the impression that there is a lot of pressure on Clinton delegates to vote for Obama on the first ballot under the guise of “party unity”.

She said she hasn’t heard of any consequences if she doesn’t vote for Obama on the first ballot. She said she has remained open to her constituents that voted for her. She said her constituents have remonded quite often to stay strong for Hillary. And she spoke passionately about her commitment to vote for Hillary. Cindy feels that it is disrespectful to vote for Obama on the first ballot. There are many other delegates that holds her beliefs. She said there are other delegates who think it is wrong if Hillary Delegates vote for her on the first ballot, not for Obama.

There is still disunity in the party despite the call from the Democratic Party leadership to unify behind Obama.

I also think on some sort of bizarre level that it actually does suggest that a potential Hillary V.P. pick might not be the worst idea in the world.

OK, for about the billionth time:

Why is it so difficult for party insiders to understand the bitterness and anger of Hillary voters? I’m not sure what planet Kamarck was vacationing on during the Michigan and Florida mess, but as a member of the Rules Committee – and as someone WHO WORKED FOR AL GORE’S CAMPAIGN IN 2000 – even she must (or should) comprehend the frustration of the rank and file with the party’s inability to arrive at a solution until the last minute. Unsubstantiated rumors? How about disenfranchisement as an issue, which is quite substantiated thank you very much? How about assigning delegates to a candidate who did not campaign for them or win them fair and square? Does she remember what happened in Florida in 2000? Maybe hanging around Hahvahd Yahd for all this time has clouded her memory. I, on the other hand, remember that travesty like it was yesterday. And you can bet that if Republicans tried to pull this stunt on the Democrats during the general the Dems would be screaming bloody murder, and justifiably so.

Then there’s this:

The worst thing that can happen at a convention is that it can be real.

Oh really? So respecting and listening to the points of view of ALL the party’s members, not just those with whom you agree, is the worst case scenario? Well, maybe for this crowd it is. Finally someone tells the truth.

And Michael Cohen was on a roll, until he blamed Hillary for everything and announced that it was her responsibility to put a lid on her supporters. Not a word about the sexism and calumnies the woman endured during the campaign. Not a peep about how the media, the blogosphere, “progressive” radio and Democratic mandarins dogpiled on her and tried to push her out of the race almost from the get-go.

There’s a lot more to talk about but I’ll leave that up to you.

As Americans, we expect certain liberties and rights that were granted us by our forefathers, who wrote documents like the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. “We the people” expect that these fundamental rights will always be protected. However, in the current Democratic Presidential Primary, this has not been the case. We believe that the The Democratic National Committee (DNC) made a grave error by depriving American voters of their choice of Hillary Clinton as Democratic nominee. Senator Clinton, by all accounts, except caucuses, won the Primary Election and, therefore, should be the 2008 Democratic Nominee. That didn’t happen, due largely to illegitimate and illegal acts. We have interviews of many accounts from caucus states recounting threats, intimidation, lies, stolen documents, falsified documents, busing in voters in exchange for paying for “dinners,” etc. There are at least 2000 complaints, in Texas alone, of irregularities directed towards the Obama Campaign, that have lead to a very fractured and broken Democratic Party.

The preview, all 33 minutes of it, is compelling. In essence, it is a visual companion to the work of Dr. Lynette Long at Caucus Fraud and Peniel Cronin on Primaries and Caucuses (which will appear at NQ shortly). In short, it is disturbing not just how this happened, but THAT it happened in our country.

I invite you to watch the preview to this documentary, about which the authors said this:

This documentary is about the disenfranchising of American citizens by the Democratic Party and the Obama Campaign. We the People have made this film. Democrats have sent in their stories from all parts of America. We want to be heard and let the country know how our party has sanctioned the actions of what we feel are Obama campaign “Chicago Machine” dirty politics. We believe this infamous campaign of “change” from Chicago encouraged and created an army to steal caucus packets, falsify documents, change results, allow unregistered people to vote, scare and intimidate Hillary supporters, stalk them, threaten them, lock them out of their polling places, silence their voices and stop their right to vote, which is, of course, all documented in “We Will Not Be Silenced.”

This documentary contains powerful, important information. I urge you to spread the word however you are able. Now is the time.

To view, CLICK HERE.

My deepest thanks to all of those at “We Will Not Be Silenced” for your commitment to democracy, to the rights of Americans, all Americans, to vote. Thank you for your courage and integrity in getting this critical information out. And thank you for bringing the voices of these Americans out for us all to witness

On August 19, Julie Foudy, only one of the most awesome women of all time – and a HIGHLY successful soccer player who also fought HARD against the Republicans attempts to dismiss Title IX, had an intense “human interest” story. It was about a young Afghan woman named Mehmoba Ahdyar. She is a runner, and the only woman on the Afghanistan Olympics team (she is a runner). What was particularly intense were the reports of what she has to go through to train, particularly the threats and the taunts.

Take a look at the video (I have to say, it was informative to me to hear what they think of Karzai).

But then there was a twist a month before the Olympics. She disappeared. No one had a clue where she was. They had to pull in another athlete, Robina Muqimyar, also a track runner, to replace her. Muqimyar had retired from running, so this came as quite a surprise to her. She came in last.

But what became of Andyar? Well, the video below reveals it all. There is a bit of duplication between the two, but not much, so bear with it:

So now we know. She defected. Why? Because to be a young woman in Afghanistan now, one with dreams and hopes that other young women around the world are encouraged to pursue, means threats against her, and her family. It means the police showing up at the door. It means her family being taken to jail because she is accused of being a “prostitute.”

What a mess. What a mess to which we have contributed, and which we have neglected. If only our Congress had some kind of oversight committee for Afghanistan and NATO to help it push forward, and to help push back the Taliban, to…What? What did you say? That Congress DOES have that kind of committee? Well, what the hell has it done lately? Nothing? NOTHING?? Why not? Why would a committee that had oversight over a country in which we are at WAR not done anything? Because the chairman has been busy running for president?? You have got to be kidding me!! Not ONE meeting? Huh.

Now, I gotta tell you, that if HILLARY had been chair of that committee, they would have met a gazillion times by now. She would know who BOTH of these women athletes were, and would have helped them get the training they needed, the PROTECTION they needed. She would have gotten more of our soldiers there to do the job they were sent to do. And she would have gotten some schools built. Oh, you know she would have.

And so, here is one last video for you. It is Hillary Clinton talking about her trip to Iraq and Afghanistan (side note – pay attention to where she said she went when she was over there. Oh, you’ll know – trust me!). And just imagine that THIS person is the one who becomes president, not the one who cannot be bothered to chair one single damn committee meeting on European and NATO Affairs, to provide absolutely NO oversight to a country in which we have our TROOPS.

Here’s Hillary Clinton, the one who will actually HELP women like Andyar and Muqimyar, and who was prescient about Afghanistan:

And once again, SuperDs, I remind you – there is still time. Just because Obama was selected the Presumptuous Nominee does not mean you have to go along with it. Stand up for democracy, stand up for what is right, stand UP for the person who can actually WIN the White House, and who is dedicated to the country’s citizens. You know that is Hillary Clinton, not Mr. “That’s above my pay grade and I will ask my wife and grandmother what I should do when I am faced with a difficult decision” Obama. This is no time to worry about pride. This is the time to worry about the COUNTRY. We have serious problems – Iraq; Pakistan, even more now since Musharraf stepped down; Georgia and Russia…This is the time for serious leadership, and that is NOT Obama. It IS Hillary Clinton. She is the one the people want to take care of these situations, and bring our country forward. SHE is the One for whom we have been waiting. Do your jobs – vote your CONSCIENCE, not your bank balance. Stand up. Stand UP.

Approximately a year ago thousands of committed volunteers attended “Camp Obama,” a four-day indoctrination program, geared at teaching pre-screened Obama volunteers grass roots organizational strategies.  

The training, which specifically focused on the caucus states, taught volunteers to be “ruthless,” “take risks,” and win at all costs. Obama’s campaign and Camp Obama’s strategy which focused on the vulnerable caucuses and the early primaries worked. 

Obama only lost 1 out of 14 caucuses, a staggering achievement, especially when he lost 21 out of 38 primaries and scored a statistical tie in popular vote.   How did he accomplish such an astonishing string of victories that would eventually define the Democratic Primary? 

At www.caucusanalysis.org, a new website devoted exclusively to the 2008 Democratic caucuses, you can read Tales from the Front, stories told to sites founder, Dr. Lynette Long, by participants in all 14 caucus states.  Here are excerpts from  the website. For complete statements and a mathematical analysis of each state, go to www.caucusanalysis.org.

FROM IOWA

I live in Davenport, Iowa – Precinct 23.  I arrived at our precinct caucus at 6:30.  At 6:50 pm, over 75 people of African American descent came walking in, past the tables and sat in the Obama section.  I knew one of them from my canvassing.  I knew another one who did not live in this precinct!  And aside from the 4 or 5 families that live on Hillandale Road, there are no other black people in this unusually white precinct and one of those black couples were in my Hillary section.  The results were Obama 3, Clinton, 2, Edwards 1!  It was impossible for me to argue since the precinct chair was an Obama supporter from another precinct.  A very large bus was seen in the parking lot afterwards carrying these folks back.

FROM IOWA

You probably have heard about the busloads coming in from over the IL border, but you may not have known about the busloads coming in from the NE border. North Omaha and Omaha itself are two of the three places in NE — Lincoln being the third — where there’s over 5% African-American population. Obama’s campaign offered people things like I-pods and free stuff– t-shirts, clothes, shoes, and at least two free meals on the Nebraska side.

FROM KANSAS

There were a lot of young people there and a lot of black people.  We do not have that many blacks in this county.  El Dorado is a small town of about 12,000 and it is the largest town in the county.  There are probably only a handful of blacks that live in El Dorado.  I work with the school district and travel to the high school, middle school and elementary schools and believe me, there are very, very, few  black students.

FROM MINNESOTA

There was NO voter registration for the MN caucus… no identification was checked so Obots were going from room to room voting over and over again giggling all the while doing it. 

FROM NEVADA

Throughout this mess of a process, hostility built to a degree I found truly alarming.  Some overenthusiastic BHO supporters formed a gauntlet in the hallway outside the registration area, on the way to the ballroom, within the zone in which campaigning was prohibited.  Any HRC supporter was subject to verbal abuse, ridicule and, eventually, physical assault.

FROM NEBRASKA

Nebraska was totally chaotic and each precinct location had a different way to do the caucus. In Nebraska, 18 precincts where crammed into one high school in Sarpy county. When I got there, it felt like I stepped into a Third World voting situation. They were trying to determine whether people could actually participate in the caucuses or not, and then it seemed like they just gave up on that and just let anyone participate. There was a gym at the high school where about 5 precincts met. A person was supposed to fill out their preference on a slip of paper and then turn it in. They tried to run it like a primary instead of a true caucus, just take out any semblance of order and guards against voter disenfranchisement that a normal primary would have. I found a pile of these preferences slips just sitting on a table where anyone could pick them up and fill them out.

FROM TEXAS

I was at the Texas Caucus and the Obama supporter’s took the Packets as early as 6:30 AM which they were told not to do, They never let go and then when time came to vote they took over the precinct by some of them pushing the people that were supposed to run it across the room to chairs. They called in incorrect totals for Obama instead of correct ones. He actually had 4 delegates and they called in 19 delegates.

When my 88 year old Mother showed up, who can hardly walk on her walker, and they took her walker away from her when she said she was there to vote for Hillary. They said you are in the wrong place old woman; this is an Obama precinct, and you need to go across town. When I saw what was happening I called the police.  Blog post no quarter evelyn

FROM TEXAS

As an eye witness at the Precinct and Senate District Conventions, this is how Obama won many caucuses. First of all, vast numbers of Obama supporters were bused in to the conventions. They were loud and intimidating. Texas Democratic rules state that each person who participates in the Precinct Convention should have voted in this precinct and sign-in personally on a formal sign-in sheet. So many Obama people showed up, that there were not enough sign-in sheets available, so when the conventions ended, there were many sign-in sheets for Obama filled out in the same handwriting, not signed-in as specified. As Hillary supporters, we obtained copies of these sign-in sheets from all over south Texas, Harris County in particular. We laboriously compared the names on the sheets to see if the person who attended the precinct convention had voted in the primary election. Many listed Obama people had not. We then cross-checked the names of the Obama people to see if they lived in the correct precinct. Many times the Obama people did not come to the correct precinct and often appeared on sign-in sheets, as being present in several precinct conventions at the same time (a violation of the space-time continuum).

FROM THE TEXAS CONVENTION

I walked into the Nueses,Texas County Convention only to discover that I was already there as an Obama delegate.

FROM THE TEXAS CONVENTION

They shoved Obama signs in Clinton delegates’ faces, three inches from the nose, called them racists, and told my friend that she had to move from her third-row seat in one meeting and go sit in the back.  She also said that the proceedings were heavily laced with black power speeches by preachers as well as public officials.

FROM WASHINGTON STATE

What I saw was at least 3 trained group agitators — Since my MA is in group dynamics and group facilitation I recognized when someone is using techniques that I have been trained in. If such individuals were planted in ALL precincts, along with bringing in ringers — then ALL caucus results are bogus. For this sort of intensive origination to take place in a rural area — this means that a vast amount of money was spent to manipulate the results of the caucus. The Obama supporters kept changing the number of delegates — subtracting Clinton delegates and increasing Obama delegates, each time they claimed someone had changed and they had to do "complicated" math and that’s why Clinton kept losing delegates. There were NO Clinton supporters checking the Obama "math".

Read full accounts at www.caucusanalysis.org.

Contact DrLynetteLong@aol.com

It’s no secret that they have been replacing delegates to ensure votes for Barack Obama at convention time. After all, let’s face the fact that Barky is terribly concerned about being embarrassed during that roll call vote. Since he has no clear ‘mandate’ he is doing what he always does. Fix Things Up So It Looks Better For Him Than It Is. Thus, he has surrepticiously been dumping a Clinton delegate here and a Clinton delegate there and replacing them with Obama delegates–in order to and make his roll call count look prettier than it really is. Later, all his sycophants will yell about how OBVIOUS it is that he is a Real Winner. Oh, he’s a winner all right…..a Real Winner in the figurative sense. Barack Obama is a real piece of work.

Overall, it looks as though they pretty much expected that people were going to sit down and shut up while they worked their magic. Especially those damned women!

At first, the caucus fraud and irregularity situations appeared to be pretty well buried. If you go to Dr. Lynette Long’s dedicated Caucus Fraud site, you will see that silence, Golden as it is for The One, isn’t going to be the order of the day on that subject either. I’ve been informed that Superdelegates are currently the recipients of caucus fraud information. We shall see just how far they are willing to voluntarily comprehend the significance of this.

Meanwhile, Clinton Supporters in Kentucky just can’t shut their damned mouths, you know? They are ticked off and they aren’t shy about saying so. Thank you to my loyal reader, “Just me” for this gem of a link.

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WHAS11) — Fighting between Clinton and Obama supporters continues in Kentucky, as WHAS11 News has learned that Hillary Clinton supporters in Kentucky have filed an official protest with the national Democratic Party.

The complaint alleges that a Hillary Clinton delegate to the national convention was replaced with a Barack Obama supporter, in violation of the party’s rules.

The state party removed Todd Hollenbach, a delegate who supports Clinton, and replaced him with Ruth Ann Palumbo, who supports Obama.

But you see, there is no end to the smarmy behavior slithering out of the DNC. Here’s their little ole’ explanation.

The state party made the change because the DNC requires gender equity at the national convention.

The complaint says that the Kentucky Democratic Party broke the rules when it balanced the gender of the delegate count by replacing a male Clinton supporter with a female Obama supporter.

Delegate Todd Hollenbach was replaced by Ruth Ann Palumbo. Hollenbach supports Clinton, while Palumbo is an Obama supporter.

Ah, suddenly the Gender Card! Apparently, the DNC and Barack Obama think that the people of Kentucky fell off the back of a moving truck. While pretending that the gender they couldn’t give a rat’s ass about suddenly deserves “equity,” they finagled yet another opportunity to remove a Clinton delegate and replace it with an Obama delegate. I suppose they expect gratitude from women for this. After all, at least they are getting hoodwinked bamboozled attention, right?

Obama has been on a “switch the delegate” trip under the radar folks. He wants to make sure that roll call vote isn’t as close as it really would be if he didn’t manipulate the system to make himself look better. He’s been under the radar messing with delegate switching and lopping off heads all over the place. I was going to insert a Florida news link entitled “Obama replaces six Florida delegates,” only to find the link is no longer there. Here’s a Google of that news title. As you can see, it happened, but Winston may have actually jumped out of Orwell’s 1984 again and Poof! It’s gone.

You go ahead and give this “missing link” the benefit of the doubt. But frankly, I wish I had $1000 every time one of the news links about Obama I wrote about in the past year “disappeared”–so I am going to pass on that grace from now on.

(Geez, I miss the Big Dawg. What an eloquent, passionate, brilliant man he is!)

And then, there was Representative Clyburn who claimed to be “neutral” – you know, the same type of “neutral” that Donna Brazile was. Anyway, this is what Clyburn said about Bil Clinton:

Nice, huh? Never mind that President Clinton has worked TIRELESSLY for the African American community, and has stood with them for years. Nice payback, ESPECIALLY when Clinton did not DO what Clyburn accused him of doing. Yep, real nice, Jim.

Anywho – besides Clyburn clearly being in the tank for Obama, which he finally admitted in June, he is also known in the state of SC for his propensity toward earmarks. This is a subject on which I have written before (“Such Associates…“). Well, just hold onto your seats while you watch the following statement by Representative Clyburn at a forum in March of this year. It will blow you away!

See?? It’s a “Constitutional Mandate” for congresspeople to build pork into the budget for their family and friends! What’s the big to-do about, anyway?? Now, I hasten to add, I do not share the videographer’s political statements, and I am no fan of Senator DeMint, but he DID make a good point in this clip. And that point would be that Clyburn has a, um, well, let’s just say, UNIQUE understanding of the Constitution! Hey! Maybe THAT’S one of the reasons he supports Obama! They both seem to have a document with which I am not familiar to which they refer as “The Constitution!” Maybe they made their own. Ahem. So, yes – who the heck knew this was a “Constitutional MANDATE?”

I suppose that explains the following excerpts from article about Clyburn (highlights in bold are mine), Clyburn Quits Museum Board:
Hopes To Sidestep Conflict of Interest:

Clyburn, who tucked an $800,000 earmark for the museum into the federal budget approved late last year, said he decided to resign from the board after learning Friday that his nephew, Derrick Ballard, works for one of the two architectural firms recently hired to design the $70-$80 million museum.

This is by no means the first time issues have arisen regarding Clyburn’s propensity for earmarks:

In 2006, Clyburn was scrutinized by The (Myrtle Beach) Sun News for setting aside federal money for the Five Rivers community development organization, which hired the same nephew to design a building and reportedly paid the firm nearly $70,000 for initial work, though the building was never completed.

Five Rivers also employed Clyburn’s brother, Charles Clyburn.

Clyburn said the federal money he earmarked for Five Rivers was never appropriated, and he didn’t know of his relatives’ involvement with the organization, but he said that’s just the sort of appearance of impropriety he’s trying to avoid with the International African American Museum.

“There was no substance to it, but a lot of headlines,” he said.

Ballard works for Antoine Predock of Albuquerque, N.M., a nationally recognized architectural firm that teamed up with Moody Nolan of Columbus, Ohio, the nation’s largest black-owned architectural firm, to win the contract to design the International African American Museum. He could not be reached for comment Monday afternoon.

Rita Scott, vice chairwoman of the museum’s board, said board members were unaware the Predock firm employed a relative of Clyburn’s when the firm was selected.

Really? They had NO idea that the nephew of an incredibly POWERFUL Congerssional Representative from THIS DISTRICT worked for this particular architectural firm?? Well, of course not! The vice chairwoman continued:

“None of us knew,” Scott said. “It was a firm that we unanimously felt was the right firm.”

Evidently.

Not that the architectural firm is not a good one, it is:

Predock won the American Institute of Architects’ national gold medal in 2006, and Moody Nolan principal Curt Moody won the AIA Ohio gold medal in 2007.

The museum’s architect selection committee, which includes Charleston Mayor Joe Riley, unanimously picked the Moody/Predock team in February after interviewing three other finalists.

It is just a tad unbelievable that NO ONE KNEW, especially after the Five Rivers situation. It never occurred to ANYONE to consider that maybe, just maybe, the same nephew from the Five Rivers project, an ARCHITECT, might just have something to do with this other MAJOR project that received a huge earmark? Seriously?? I mean, I know we’re here in South Cackalacki with its really, really low academic rating (I’m kinda joking, but sadly too serious abt how far down SC is in terms of education in the country), but still – you would think SOMEONE would have thought to ask the question! Just sayin’ and all – you’d think the question would come up.

But, no. The question didn’t come up. And now we know that Rep. Clyburn, one of Obama’s big cheerleaders, and the HOUSE WHIP, no less, thinks it is his CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE to push pork into the Federal Budget for his district. Wow. You know, come to think of it, maybe it should never have been a surprise that Clyburn would back Obama, and try to tear down both Bill and Hillary along the way. The more I learn about him and how he operates, he seems like the perfect Obama supporter, don’t you think?

Rep.: Half of House Dems may vote Hillary at DNC

By AMIE PARNES & BEN SMITH | 8/15/08 5:58 PM EST:

On Friday, the Obama campaign confirmed that the floor vote in Denver, intended to assuage Clinton supporters still stewing over her narrow loss, will be conducted as a state-by-state roll call. (Um, NO – we are not stewing over “her narrow loss,” we are stewing at loss of democratic process; voter theft, fraud, and intimidation; and caucus irregularities, to name just a few.)

Rep. Loretta Sanchez says she’s happy for the chance to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton at the Democratic National Convention — and she predicts that as many as half of the Democrats in the House could join her. (WOOHOO!!!! About damn time y’all got yourselves some backbone!!! Not you, Rep. Sanchez – you have always been a stand-up woman!)

Just how many former Clinton supporters will vote for the former first lady during the symbolic first ballot is anybody’s guess, but each of them will be called upon to do so — whether they want to or not.

On Friday, the Obama campaign confirmed that the floor vote in Denver, intended to assuage Clinton supporters still stewing over her narrow loss, will be conducted as a state-by-state roll call. Under proposed convention bylaws, delegates would be forced to register their votes on a tally sheet with the convention secretary — the rules could be altered or suspended before the start of the convention.

“By putting her name in nomination, you’re putting people on the spot,” said former delegate counter Matt Seyfang, adding a second potential drawback: “Having a roll call … just chews into your broadcast time.” (Oh, dear, goddess – yes, that bothersome little democratic process is so TIME consuming! Don’t the little people know it is all about OBAMA?!?!?! We cannot be bothered with things like actual VOTES and a smidgen of transparency!! C’mon, already – sheesh!!)

Lower-key options were available. For example, Clinton’s name could have been entered into nomination, followed by laudatory speeches, ending with her release of delegates to Obama and proposal that he be nomination by acclamation, Seyfang said.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the “mechanics” of the roll call vote are still being worked out, but he conceded that Clinton probably will garner many votes on the first ballot. (“Mechanics”?? You mean, like how much they can strong-arm Clinton to just throw over her delegates to The One as quickly as possible without letting it LOOK like that is what they are doing?)

For Obama’s camp, the roll call is a ritual that will defuse any potential tension with Clinton or her supporters without affecting the outcome or the theater of Obama’s dramatic nomination. (Oh, I see – the whole roll call thing isn’t really a necessary part of the Democratic, or even Republican, Party electing its nominee, it is simply a “ritual”! Well, I have to tell you, I have learned something new today! All along, I thought the “ritual” of the roll call was to allow the respective delegates to vote for their candidate, thus representing the actual will of the people. Silly me!!! What a goof…)

Said Sanchez: “I believe there are a lot of supporters for Hillary among the superdelegates, especially now that they’ve agreed to place her name in nomination. I think half the House Democrats would probably be Hillary supporters, especially women. … I felt she was the most experienced and the best candidate and I still feel that way.” (Hell to the YES!!!)

Clinton herself has said she plans to vote for Obama. (Honestly, what else is she going to say? Poor thing – she is so between a rock and a hard place…)

A longtime Clinton adviser said it was “crazy” to guess at numbers but estimated that the former first lady would garner between 600 and 1,200 delegates — considerably short of the approximately 1,800 she had collected at the time of her departure from the race in early June.

“It’s a bizarre strategy,” said one Democratic strategist of the roll call. “It could backfire and show that her influence is waning. Chances are, she’s not going to have as many delegates vote for her on the floor as she had in the primary.”

Indeed, many Hillary diehards, including at least one member of the New York delegation, are reluctant to vote for Clinton after switching over to Obama.

“I think that most superdelegates, including myself, are going for Obama,” said New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, who campaigned with Clinton around the country. “I made my decision for Obama, and I’m not switching again.”

Other onetime Clinton backers are reluctant to reverse course for fear of angering their black constituents.

“My boss is totally conflicted about it — and pissed Hillary is putting us in this position,” said a congressional staffer for another New York House member. “We still haven’t made up our mind and I don’t know when we are going to.” (I’m sorry, s/he’s PISSED that HILLARY is putting him/her in this position?!?!? Golly gee willkers, pal – that democratic process thing just SUCKS for you, doesn’t it?? You are mad at HER for what, getting the majority of popular votes so that you might have to actually take a stand and piss some people off? Wowie zowie – you poor little things. But see, this was never supposed to be a SELECTION anyway, so for people to act like Obama should get it just so the AA community doesn’t get pissed off is just plain cowardice. And it’s insulting. To the AA community and the rest of us. This is NOT American Idol – really. It is about the highest job in all the land, and voting for the least competent candidate ever is a sacred duty. It is not one to be used to placate people who might get MAD at you if you vote the way the majority of people voted. Again, it’s called a SPINE – look into it, Congressional Staffer. Oh, and stop the blaming of HILLARY for being the candidate the PEOPLE want! That is assholic on oh-so-many-levels. Talk about blaming the victim – good grief.)

Another New York delegate, speaking on condition of anonymity, predicted that as much as 30 percent to 40 percent of the New York delegation would pick Clinton over Obama during the symbolic vote.

Obama’s decision to accept a roll call vote, which came after weeks of talks with the Clinton camp, doesn’t mean he’ll let the process get out of hand, observers say. (I’m sorry, does this say Obama is going to ACCEPT a roll call vote?!?!?! Oh, what a great guy! He is actually going to allow a DEMOCRATIC process that has existed for over a hundred years to take place?? How benevolent of him. Cough. Choke. Gimme a break already – this is the way Conventions are SUPPOSED to work. If a candidate with 1 delegate can be on a ballot, the only question is why they thought Clinton SHOULD NOT HAVE been in the first place!!!! THAT is the question, not how magnanimous Obama is being by following PROTOCOL!! What is WRONG with these people?!?!?!?)

“The convention is about nominating Barack, so his people want to speed through the vote as fast as possible so it won’t take too much TV time,” said a Democratic delegate who plans to vote for Clinton. “They also want to avoid a scenario where she’s leading at any point.” (Again, silly me. I thought the Convention was about nominating the candidate who is best for the country, the one for whom the majority of people voted. I did not realize before this year that the DNC has become synonymous with Barack Obama. I still cannot wrap my head around how this fledgling senator, with virtually no record, dangerous associates, and astonishing secrecy who will not even provide his REAL birth certificate, is the one the DNC hand-picked. It just boggles my mind. But this convention, this “show,” is all about OBAMA, not the Democratic National Party, or so it appears. What a tragedy that the DNC is morphing into the RNC. I never thought I’d see the day, and I sure wish I never had…)

(Additional reporting by Glenn Thrush.)

While most folks accept that Obama was born in the U.S. of an American mother, it is increasingly suggestive that he may have shared Kenyan citizenship from his father, then when his mother remarried, was adopted and became an Indonesian citizen. In the latter, a school record clearly lists his citizenship as Indonesian. This would seem consistent with his adoption and the family move to Indonesia.

Obama has not addressed this. His offered birth certificate is being questioned by a number of folks who claim it is a forgery. It is suggested that his original birth certificate was sealed and replaced by a new one upon his adoption and move to Indonesia. It is suggested that in addition to his new name, Barry Soetoro, his adopted father and his mother changed his citizenship to Indonesia. Surely there will be records of this somewhere but I’ve yet to see anything beyond the notes about the sealed original birth certificate, the new one, a copy allegedly issued in 2007, an original that Obama wrote he held, and comments about the adoption in 1965 or 1966. I have not seen anything definitive on any of this to show it is anything more than speculation.

A photograph of an Indonesian school record, taken in January 2007 purportedly shows Obama as Barry Soetoro, religion as Islam, and citizenship as Indonesian. I have personally emailed AP and the current host of this image (Daylife) seeking confirmation that this image is legit. I’ve even called the latter but it does not appear that anyone answers the phones and voicemail messages have so far not been returned. I’m very suspicious of this document, even though it shows that it’s been posted for 18 months, it’s discovery now and content is very timely and explosive. Consider too that Daylife management include previous members of Edwards and Kerry’s campaigns, plus the DNC. This document could be a fake to stir up and embarrass those opposing Obama. I have received confirmation from Matthew Lutts at AP at 3:44 p.m. ET that “Yes, the image is legit.”

There are numerous sites now linking to and discussing this document. An early source is so-called TexasDarlin in his/her blog of the same name. [SusanUnPC's Note: It was not the intention of Larry Johnson or me in any way to criticize TexasDarlin's dogged, extensive work on these issues. We know her, and have spoken to her on the telephone. Since I haven't been able to reach Matthew after posting this, I am including this note, and trust he does not object. I find his story to be very worthwhile. He sent it to us late last night, when Larry and I were both exhausted and had too many other matters we were dealing with. We apologize to TexasDarlin for any offense, but we also respect Matthew's considerable research abilities and his superlative writing skills.] As they are anonymous, I distrust what they write. As of this afternoon, though, they do link to an AP article by Nedra Pickler via The Washington Post regarding the school record. The focus there was disputing the labeled religion but not the citizenship. Religion was and for some is still the hot-button issue. The question of citizenship is far more important and has constitutional and electability implications that make this worthy of revisiting.

Two other sites offer more cautious review of the school record and its implications:

• Change & Experience. Which is also, like TexasDarlin, anonymous, but offers more careful and even balanced discussion of the school record.
• Andy Martin, author of “Obama: The Man Behind the Mask”, offers a cautious analysis of the document and its implications.

This does put the legitimacy of Obama’s candidacy and eligibility to be president in question. I think Obama needs to provide unequivocal answers to a number of questions:

1. Are you now a U.S. citizen?
2. Have you ever held as a youth or adult, citizenship in another country?
3. Did you ever possess or travel using, at least in part, the passport of another country? (E.g., while in Indonesia, visiting Pakistan, Kenya)
4. Did you renounce any foreign citizenship, and when, and do you now hold solely U.S. citizenship today?
5. Can you confirm or deny your name change as a youth from Barack Hussein Obama II to Barry Soetoro when you were adopted by your step-father?
6. Did you legally reclaim your birth name? When and how?
7. Why did you not list your adopted name Barry Soetoro on any forms associated with your legal profession or others that ask for any other names you have ever used? Have you now or will you update these records?
8. And by the way, did you register with the U.S. Selective Service when you turned 18?

I am sure these questions can be better worded, especially to extract clear yes/no answers, and I am also sure that there are other pertinent questions that might be asked at the same time. I do think that now, or later in the campaign, these questions will be asked again and again and that eventually Obama will be forced to answer. I’d prefer that now so that the Democratic party and delegates to the convention can make an informed choice when they vote for Obama or Clinton as the party nominee.

Matthew Weaver

The Independent Review

:::::::::::::::::::

UPDATE:

I just want to add a clarification to my post. In referencing TexasDarlin and noting his/her anonymity, I meant no disrespect, nor did I dispute what they have written. (For the record, I have also written comments in the past at TexasDarlin site directly.) My point is simply that I personally question anonymous posts and blogs because they lack a name and face behind them. As we see too much of on the Internet today anybody can post just about anything without the slightest chance of being held accountable. I recognize that, as Susan writes here and as both Larry and her have written previously, they have had contact with TexasDarlin and are comfortable with trusting TexasDarlin is legit. Fine. I was not in anyway suggesting this was in error and, again, no disrepect intended.

– Matthew Weaver