Yes, people are speaking out now about what machinations ensued at the Democratic (sic) National Convention. Here are Gloria Allred and Alma Sanford, along with an anonymous delegate, speaking out about the way the Obama Campaign and the DNC stole the election from Hillary Rodham Clinton:

I think the days of the Democratic Party being Democratic are long, long, gone. I appreciate Ms. Allred’s sentiment and all, but the party she thought she knew no longer exists, at least as far as I am concerned. It made that abundantly clear May 31, 2008.

And here we are, getting ready for yet another election. What are the Democrats doing? Throwing lavish parties for one of their House representatives who had had a number of ethics violations levied against him. Oh, yes, that would be Charlie Rangel with his big birthday bash at the Plaza. That will sure show him, won’t it? Sheesh. Oh, sure, Obama is making some CYA rumblings about Rangel being old and wishing he could end his career with dignity, but it is way too late for that already, isn’t it? But that party for him is still going forward, and the numbers of Democrats expressing concern can be counted on two hands. Way to make clear the Party’s priorities, DNC, especially around ETHICS.

Then there is Maxine Waters with her current Ethics charges. She already has been under scrutiny by some of us for the direction in which she wants to take the country, but these charges are concrete indicators of how she does business. Waters and Rangel both, I should say.

And that’s just it – the DNC has made its priorities clear, and it is not to represent the will of the voter, and certainly not to conduct business in an ethical manner. Maybe this has been going on for a while, but never was it so blatant as 2008. Voter fraud, caucus fraud, false charges of racism – yep, ethics do not seem high on the DNC list, unless it is a way to violate more of them.

I hope the voters send THEM a clear message in 2010 that we do care about people’s behavior. We do care how the parties conduct themselves, and how their leaders conduct themselves. And, assuming our votes actually count, that we can make that clear in the polling place in 2010, and beyond.

Ethics do matter. It’s high time the Democrats, and Republicans, too, act like it.

California!. What a state! We are known for our whacky politics and all-around open-minded, fun-loving, Hollywood-inspired ways. Calling us “yogurt-loving, latte drinking, text-messaging, vegetarian neurotics” is taken as a compliment. If you have a pulse, you are a friend and deserve a big hug.

So you would think that we would welcome giving people who love and are committed to each other their due civil rights.

Well, we did, and then it got taken away by the proponents of Proposition 8. These sour people ran a slick, homophobic, and highly misleading ad-campaign that would have even made David Axelrod blush. They scared enough voters—those who don’t bother to look beyond the hype to learn the facts—into backtracking.

Now comes the critical test. Was Proposition 8 constitutional? May 26th is D (for DECISION) Day. The California Supreme Court will either negate it, recognizing equal protection under the law for all, or maintain discrimination and the taking away of fundamental civil rights from a minority.

So many friends’ lives are affected by this vote. One friend, who did get married during the window when gay marriage was legal here, has been with her now-wife for 30 years. That’s more than most heterosexual marriages last. And that is just one example of many who have experienced a lot of pain along the way and now pray that their marriages will hold up. Other couples are waiting for the word that they, too, can marry the person they love.

So let’s see what happens. In the meantime Iowa, of all places (among others), got it right. How embarrassing to us Californians who thought we were on the forefront of every right idea.

In my new video I look at the way the Emperor’s Clothing Syndrome has dominated the arts and humanities over the past half century, with the help of academic practitioners looking for theories to build on, trying to carve out some academic territory for themselves and becoming the high priests or priestesses of their chosen domains. In music, it ended with meaningless and very irritating noise.

Now I make some sweeping generalizations in this video, and may be overstating my case for effect, but that does not necessarily dilute the reality of what I am saying.

As I said at the beginning of the top ten composer series, we saw the Emperor’s Clothing Syndrome ( a tendency to pretend to see or believe something out of fear of being thought of out of step with others, or out of fear that you might be attacked or ridiculed if you show your true feelings) running rampant during the elections.

“It’s the kind of pseudo-liberal academic milieu that produces people like the Beast with No Name, who is a Rhodes scholar and yet one of the most narrow-minded and bigoted people you can find. One of the problems is that lot of people who excel academically are people who are able to absorb and reflect back what their tutors want them to,” I wrote then.

“They are the kind of people who try to impose their narrow and very theoretical world view on others and become blinkered in their focus, doing their best to beat down anyone who doesn’t agree with them. (Now what does that remind you of?).”

Academia can provide you with the tools and techniques of art, but the academic process cannot make you an artist, or even an art critic.

From a broader perspective, Academia can provide you with a framework for examining things, but to get close to the true nature of anything you have to examine it through a number of different frameworks from a number of different angles. If you keep using the same theoretical frameworks, they become blinkers.

Many branches of academia, particularly in the field of arts and humanities, strive to create a single framework or model of things and academics fight to have their models adopted as the only ones that are valid. That is what gives them power.

Art and life in general cannot be confined by academic theories or opinion. The essence of art is that it must be transcendant, and to be transcendant it has to be organic. It has to be able to grow beyond prescribed boundaries to achieve new perspectives.

As in art, so in life.

When Facebook-Favreau-gate began, I thought of it as simply a puerile act showing the young man in question had yet to slough off that collegiate patina.

Then I realized I was only getting angrier at the boy.

Today, Amy Siskind, over at The Daily Beast, had a few things to say.

Incident 3: John Favreau Gropes Cardboard Likeness of Sen Clinton

Check out what President-elect Obama’s pick for director of speechwriting at the White House does in his free time.

This is the guy who puts words in Obama’s mouth, right?
————-
Is the type of “change” we are meant to believe in? Looks like more of the “boys club” “(only 27% of Cabinet picks to date are women—less than President Clinton and President W. Bush)” that seems to be developing at the White House under President-elect Obama.

Read the rest ->

She combines the Favreau-executive-branch-grope-fest with stories about the “Big 3 Bailout” where women’s opinions are neither solicited nor desired and the Treasury secretary-select, Geitner, who also “de-solicits” female opinion – even that of the head of the FDIC.

Siskind sees a pattern. Fine. Of course, that pattern became visible months ago. Misogyny is now part of the “liberal” canon, both political and punditocral.

So, why is Facebook-Favreau so bothersome?

* The picture tells a LOT about President-Elect Obama’s “chief speechwriter” – mainly that the dude acts like either the pledge master or would-be frat brother, I can’t tell which. I live in a college town, so I see this a lot, but it’s a COLLEGE TOWN. I don’t live near 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, where those lucky enough to work are expected to be more sophisticated than the average binge-drinker. And this guy apparently isn’t worldly enough to know that potential employers regularly check applicants out on Facebook. Many employers consider Facebook party pics something of a negative, after all.

* This picture gives the sense that Hillary featured strongly in Team Obama’s thinking. And the bs about “high spirits” or “post-long-campaign-shenanigans” just doesn’t pass the smell test. No one keeps a cardboard cutout of someone they like. OK, maybe some do. But the pose of Favreau and unnamed wingman are not respectful. A respectful pose wouldn’t be funny, after all. And funny was the putative point of the picture although it is a type of funny typically found in rhyming couplets on a bathroom wall. Lame and boring to anyone older than about 16.

* The treatment of this picture as a non-issue by President-Elect Obama himself continues a tradition of treating women poorly despite hyper vigilance on AA discrimination / insult issues. Jeeeez, I could go on and on, but we’ve written so much about this at NQ, I feel like I’m forever repeating myself (and the other fine writers). President-Elect Obama should have changed the tone of his campaign IMMEDIATELY after the primary with respect (or lack of) to HRC. Had that been the case, this cutout would have been long gone. The t-shirt on wingman as well as Favreau’s presence suggest they didn’t expect President-Elect Obama to be bothered by the picture.

* HRC is now the likely incoming US Secretary of State. That’s supposed to be a position of power and respect. Had these two jello shot dudes been just some 19 year olds from my local U, it would be disrespectful but not necessarily a potential problem for international relations. Now, I don’t think a disrespectful picture of ANY US official is an international incident, as long as the picture originates from the opposition, doodlers and/or political cartoonists. That stuff is to be expected, along with the perennial US flag burnings by people who have no idea what our flag actually looks like.

But this originates from the office of President-Elect Obama, from a person with direct access to President-Elect Obama and who has shaped both the image and message of President-Elect Obama to the US public. Because of Favreau’s access to President-Elect Obama and his importance to President-Elect Obama’s success to date, it is hard to believe this picture isn’t reflective of a broader attitude toward HRC, and, to judge by other issues regarding females, women in general. THAT’S the problem here. That opens a window for others to wonder about President-Elect Obama’s confidence and trust in HRC and in the US SOS. Unacceptable. While all the pundits and tvidiots are talking about whether HRC can be “loyal” and “tow the Obama line” without trying to “push her vision instead of his,” we now have some indirect evidence of a problem going the other way. Not that this should be a surprise, really.

Quite frankly, I’m disgusted that a would-be member of President-Elect Obama’s office would be so undisciplined and immature. While President-Elect Obama appealed to students, he isn’t supposed to put them in high office until they’ve learned a few things. Not to post stupid pictures revealing more than you should on Facebook should have been top of that list. Actually, that would have been understood by an adult. Clearly, Favreau’s boyhood isn’t over.

Indirectly, this picture is another indictment of a campaign and candidate utterly tone deaf to women. What’s worse, having nominated Hillary Clinton for one of the highest offices in the nation, President-Elect Obama has now undercut her personally and as US SOS by not immediately taking care of padwan Favreau. As much as anything else, this sends a signal to carefully watching nations as the BO administration takes shape.

I cannot think of a way out (assuming he gives a rip) for President-Elect Obama at this point than to “bus” young Facebook-Favreau. But time passes, and President-Elect Obama has clearly sent a message by dragging his heels.

It has taken the better part of a year, and specifically the last six months of this election season, for committed citizen journalists at NoQuarter and many other blogsites to do the research on Barack Obama that the media, the democratic national committee, and our Congress should have done.   Although our collective knowledge of Barack Obama and the concerns of his candidacy came too late to make a difference in this election,  for all our hard work, we were successful in shedding some light on the content of his character: his associations, his deeds, his family relations, his friends, his stewardship, his patriotism, his potential agenda, and the startling depth of his secrecy. 

Now that we have “un-muddied” the water…..we stand on the edge of a caldera* with no idea of the complexity, depth,  explosiveness, nor unpredictability of this phenomenon we have all witnessed in the rise of Barack Obama!   We as a country have never actually been here before, standing at the edge, except perhaps in the election of 1860. One realizes at once the perils of both diving into that hot pool of water or running away to avoid the explosion….

While there seems to be little evidence that we will ever fully know Obama, nor avoid the explosion change he will bring, there is a way we can learn from this experience such that our Country will never again be faced with someone who is truly unknown, inexperienced, untested, and feels (to me anyway) uncommitted to America.  We can use the  2008 experiences to also highlight and then design strategies to ensure that every political party is responsive to its constituents, and that our Constitution is really a living document.

The Constitution is by and for “we the people”; therefore “we the people” must make it work and not rely on any political party to sell America to the highest bidder.

FOUR QUESTIONS 

I bring forward four questions that get to the heart of our rights, as American citizens, to ensure that our government and its leaders are indeed qualified to lead our great country.  By extension, these questions can be used as windows to other potential areas where we the people do not yet have redress.

These questions are miraculously (given procedural errors and existing judgments)before the Supreme Court with the requirement that President-elect Obama respond to them by December 1, 2008.  

While I have not kept track of the Berg v. Obama case for many reasons, it truly is miraculous that Justice Souter granted the writ of certiorari.  Even if, as some have said, Souter’s action is not significant and procedural only, how Obama responds will reveal much about his view of the Constitution and will determine if the Supreme Court decides to hear the case.

In my opinion, the questions raised by Berg and the questions raised in the case should not have been thrown out entirely based on standing alone, or by the notion that the injury to a voter is “vague”.   The Supreme Court Rules permit the grant of a writ of certiorari only under specific circumstances.

The questions presented for review are:

1. Whether a citizen of the United States has standing to challenge the Constitutional qualifications of a Presidential nominee under the “natural born citizen clause” [Article II of the U.S. Constitution] when deprivation of the right to such a challenge would result in the infringement of a citizen’s Constitutional right to vote?
2. Isn’t it true that no one has the responsibility to ensure a United States Presidential candiate is eligible to serve as President of the United States?
3. Are there proper steps for a voter to ensure a Presidential Candidate is qualified and eligible to serve as President of the United States?
4. Isn’t it true that there are not any checks and balances to ensure the qualifications and eligibiity of a Presidential Candidate to serve as President of the United States?

 The “questions presented for review” in the the writ require Obama’ response. Notice that answering these questions does not require Obama to produce a birth certificate,  but to answer why he does not have to prove himself eligible.  

Although we cannot predict Obama’s answers, based on past legal motions submitted in the lower court case, Obama may indeed argue that (1)a citizen does not have standing, (2) that no one has responsibility to ensure eligibility, (3) that there are no proper steps for a citizen to ensure qualifications, and (4) that there are no checks and balances that exist today to ensure a candidate is qualified.  It is also possible Obama would argue that the 14th Amendment permits “naturalized citizens” and “dual citizens” to be known as “American citizens” and thereby satisfies the requirements of Article II.

I think these questions may have Obama boxed in. If he intends not release his COLB, citizenship records, etc, Obama would then practically argue a big “FU” to the U.S. Supreme Court and say in effect “I don’t have to respond to this because there is no law, no avenue for citizens, and no checks and balances that require me to do so.”  He will argue technicalities in how to disregard the Constitution. I wonder how the Supreme Court might respond to that? 

If Obama responds in any other way, he will be forced to disclose and or describe why, how, and what steps citizens can take to assure the POTUS’s  eligibility, and perhaps then he may be forced prove his eligibility to serve as POTUS under Article II. Alternatively he could be forced to concede that there are no procedures to ensure eligibility of a person for POTUS.  Would the Supreme Court order him then to produce his documentation according to the original suit filed by Berg?

One item of interest is how Obama responds to Question 4, on the existence of checks and balances to assure eligibility.  One would assume procedurally that “checks and balances” could mean legislative processes, acts, bills, or resolutions that would act as those “checks and balances”.  Here is where Obama could argue that the Senate Resolution passed by Leahy, Obama, and McCatskill on John McCain’s eligibility applies.  This resolution could be seen as an attempt by the three Senators to create a blanket provision for a naturalized citizen to be eligible to serve as POTUS.  In other words, Obama could argue that the checks and balances already exist and this resolution suffices (notice this is not a bill).

Justice Souter will then hear Berg’s response to Obama’s legal argument before deciding where the case goes next, including whether the full Supreme Court will take the issue up.  Remember that Souter’s clerks have all the lower court material and reviewed it before Souter granted the writ of certioriari.

How does the Supreme Court react?  Will it order the production of Obama’s documents? Will it order the FEC, electors, or Congress to verify his eligibility, or develop verification procedures?  Will they say that the 14th Amendment really did modify Article II criteria? Will they dismiss the case?

And how, in the meantime, are we to ever know about Barack Obama? Is the burden of proof really on America (Berg), or on Barack Obama?  Is it up to your empoyer to find out who you are, or is it up to you as an employee to provide your documentation?  Isn’t Obama supposed to be working for America?

Implications for the Future

The four questions presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 will have a lasting and enduring effect on the course of the American Constitution in the next decade or more, and will continue to feed the growing doubts about Obama’s intentions in the next four years.

Just my suspician, but I am beginning to get a more complete picture of why Obama has sealed all of his records, including college financial aid applications, papers, and coursework.  I believe his financial aid applications reveal his foreign status; and I now see that his Columbia and Harvard papers could reveal his examination of the “weaknesses” of the U.S. Constitution and ways to “remedy” them using “administrative procedures”.

As I look at the scope of research on the issue of eligibility during this election season, I note that nearly all have concluded that there are no checks and balances to assure the eligibility of a Presidential Candidate, that no one is responsible, and that indeed citizens and voters have very little recourse to ask these questions.  The Supreme Court has never been presented with this question before on Article II eligibility.  I doubt that they will duck their responsibilities to protect the constitution.

It appears that up until this time, it has been assumed that every candidate and POTUS has met Article II qualifications.  We assume that in fact no one would dare to run for and claim the Presidency if he/she didn’t meet the qualifications of the Constitution.  Looks like our age of innocence is over.

It appears that we will have to craft legislation to assure eligibility criteria are met for the POTUS, and to assign appropriate responsibilities to assure so.  If the country wants to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized or dual citizens to serve as POTUS, then we have that mechanism, wherein 75% of the states have to ratify.

The four questions to the Supreme Court also remind me of other areas in which we voters do not have redress when something goes wrong.  Although I am now an “unaffiliated” voter, having left the democratic party after November 4th, it also appears that democrats do not have an avenue of redress when the DNC and RBC violate party rules as they did in this case to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination. In addition, we now know that caucuses can be gamed, and do not serve the interests of democracy or provide a fair representation of the strength of our party’s candidates.  Because of the DNC, RBC and Obama’s gaming of the system with caucus fraud,  the blatant use of race and misogyny to silence critics, we are witnessing the democrats begin the disintegration of the “democratic brand”.  I am sure there are issues in the Republican party after GWB destroyed the “republican brand”.  We all need a detox from our respective koolaid brands in order to really see clearly.

What is next for our country?  Well, if we don’t want to dive into that hot pool, we’d better start creating an alternative vision.  A line in one of my favorite movies, The Shawshank Redemption, sums it up for me:

“…get busy livin’, or get busy dyin’…”

*Photo Credits: (1)”Predictor”, EENR, Yellowstone National Park 2003. (2)British Columbia photo stock

Prairie Fire, published in 1974, is described as Ayers’ communist manifesto.

Dedicating a book to Sirhan Sirhan isn’t radical chic or a youthful indulgence. Dedicating a book to Sirhan Sirhan is tantamount to denying the Holocaust, embracing the screeds of the Aryan Brotherhood, and joining the ranks of those whose celebrated the attacks against America on 9/11.

Equating Sirhan Sirhan with Harriet Tubman and John Brown is stupidity. Bobby Kennedy worked on behalf of the poor and the unrepresented; Sirhan is a killer.

Sirhan Sirhan is a Palestinian sympathizer who murdered Bobby Kennedy because of Kennedy’s pro-Israel position. On the 40th anniversary of the assassination, ABC News reported:

Sirhan claimed he killed Kennedy because he was angry over Kennedy’s support for Israel. Sirhan was born in Jerusalem to Arab Christian parents who had moved to America when Sirhan was 12. The assassination occurred on the first anniversary of the Six Day War in which Israel had humiliated the combined armies of its Arab neighbors.

Yet another red flag about Obama, and this one should send alarms to the Jewish supporters of Obama.

Obama and Ayers, friends and collaborators; Obama endorsed Ayers’ book, Ayers dedicated his book to Sirhan Sirhan, an anti-Israeli terrorist and murderer of Bobby Kennedy.

Rashid Khalidi: Obama’s friend, anti-Israeli pro-PLO activist. The LA Times allegedly has a video of a dinner party in which Obama is toasting Khalidi, with Bill Ayers in attendance.

Sirhan Sirhan, Bill Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, Barack Obama

Obama has surrounded himself with violent and hateful anti-American activists, and he lies about that fact. Obama knows Ayers is a liability, but he also knows that he can’t alienate the anti-American Left. Larry Johnson writes:

As we have noted repeatedly at NoQuarter, Barack Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers probably started when Barack was at Columbia University in the late 1980s. That’s why Bill Ayers then turns to Barack Obama and gets him named to head the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which Ayers established. That’s why Barack felt so comfortable kicking off his political campaign for the State legislature in Bill Ayers’ living room.

Obama’s friend dedicated his book to the murderer of Bobby Kennedy, his preacher claimed 9/11 was God’s retribution, Obama told Rick Warren that the U.S. could be evil, Ayers bombed the Pentagon, Pfleger said that Hillary Clinton believed she had “white entitlement,” Obama called his ailing grandmother a “typical white person,” and Wright said the U.S had manufactured AIDS to kill African Americans.

The Democratic Party has been infected by an alliance of radical demagogues, the corrupt Chicago machine and the anti-American Left.

Bobby Kennedy:

After funeral services in New York, RFK’s funeral train carried his body to Washington where he was to be buried near his brother. Along the way, on both sides of tracks, Americans of every color and background saluted this great man who brought the disenfranchised together.

See also American Girl in Italy’s post

Medusa contributed to this post.

In the October 17 edition of the Wall Street Journal, Lanny Davis writes that Democrats should be glad Senator Clinton stayed in the race because she made Senator Obama a better general election candidate. THIS is why Clinton supporters – most of whom were presumably Democrats – should be glad she stayed in the race?

Mr. Davis, we were glad Senator Clinton stayed in the race because we watched her win the popular vote. Many of us believe that if the Democratic Party had followed its own rules and the superdelegates and regular delegates had not been coerced by Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi and Senator Obama’s campaign (who Chairman Dean turned over the DNC to in June when no candidate had actually won the party’s nomination), Senator Clinton might very well have been the party’s nominee.

We were glad Senator Clinton stayed in the race because we thought she would make a superior President to either Senator Obama or any Republican, including Senator McCain. I still believe that.

If the best you can say about Senator Clinton’s campaign is that it helped Senator Obama then you really are not saying much about the millions of voters who cast their ballots for Senator Clinton, the thousands of us who donated money, time, and energy to Senator Clinton’s campaign. I assure you we did not do it so that her run for the nomination would help Senator Obama. We did it because wanted Senator Clinton to represent our party this November.

I am not sure, Mr. Davis, if you realize how insulting it is to those of us who are not “prominent” or “key” Democrats for you to define Senator Clinton’s campaign as some sort of testing ground for Senator Obama. Please give Senator Clinton some respect and some credit: presumably she stayed in the race because she wanted to win. She wanted to win. And it was perfectly ok for her to want to win, and to want to win because she thought she would make a better President than would Senator Obama.

I certainly agree with you, Mr. Davis, that “the cartoon caricature [of Senator Clinton] created over the years by extremists left and right has nothing to do with reality.” But although I have not known her personally over the years, as you make clear you have, I did not need to see Senator Clinton keep her word about campaigning for whoever became the Democratic nominee to recognize her as “principled and authentically committed to progressive issues”. I saw that when I first learned about Senator Clinton, which was before her husband ever ran for President, when I was studying the lawyers who worked to prosecute Richard Nixon’s participation in the Watergate break-in.

Finally, Mr. Davis, I must take issue with this particularly offensive passage in your commentary:

There always was a danger that certain working-class/rural voters who strongly supported Mrs. Clinton in such state primaries as Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia would not easily transfer their support to Mr. Obama. The same worry was often repeated about Democratic women who were angry or simply grieving about Mrs. Clinton not being picked as the nominee.

Mr. Davis, by definition, I do not qualify as one of the “certain working-class/rural voters” you disparage with the remark. But let me make it perfectly clear: I am not angry or “simply grieving” about “Mrs. Clinton not being picked as the nominee.” I am distressed that the Democratic Party rigged its own nomination process and PICKED a candidate rather than ELECTING one.

You began this election cycle supporting Senator Clinton, Mr. Davis. And as the tagline in the WSJ article states you are ending it as an Obama supporter. Given the patronizing and dismissive tone of the passage I quote above, I imagine you feel much more comfortable with the candidate you now back than the one you originally preferred.

This was a topic of conversation last night on the excellent “Patsy and Sugar” show on No Quarter Radio (Thursday nights at 9:00 pm). We have heard this before – that’s what was going to happen at the DNC Convention, too, had they not broken all of their roll-call rules.

Please, will you remind me again how this is Democratic?? Because, frankly, I resent being threatened with violence if I do not vote for a particular candidate, ANY candidate. And what does it say about Obama and his minions that this is an ACCEPTABLE tactic?? Like so many other of Obama’s tactics, this is despicable.

One of the other tactics being employed to garner Obama the win is voter fraud. Nope, not voter REGISTRATION fraud (or should I just say, ACORN??), but actual fraud.

It seems some college kids involved in “Vote From Home” have committed fraud by voting in OH, even though they are not residents of Ohio. The laws are quite clear on this: people who do not actually live in Ohio, who are there for a short time, or are on vacation, are NOT allowed to vote. But there is a group of young people who rented a house with the sole purpose of engaging in voter fraud. Yep. Here’s the report:

Oh, dear. This is but the tip of the iceberg, though.

Wait until you see THIS video:

I am practically speechless. To steal someone’s vote is criminal. And morally bankrupt. But to do it right in front of them? “Shameless” doesn’t begin to cover it.

I guess this goes right along with voting for someone who is no longer with us. As in, they have passed away. Dead. Yes, imagine the surprise when Linda Hill’s family found out she was still voting – two years after her death.

Then there is ACORN, the voter registration arm of the Obama Campaign. The number of investigations into ACORN, for example, are widening, now in 14 states. You may notice that I have never mentioned them being here in SC. There is a reason for that. Two years ago, ACORN was faced with attention from State Law Enforcement Division (SLED):

opened an investigation into its registration efforts in the Columbia area two years ago.

That investigation is ongoing, a SLED official said, declining further comment.

Yeppers. So, it isn’t that ACORN has not tried its creative (!!!) registration here in the state of SC this year, it is that it DID try, and flags went up immediately. Two years ago. Wowie zowie.

Kinda makes me wonder what took these other states so long to catch on, you know?

Hopefully, those other states have caught on in time, though that might not help in Ohio. It seems the Supreme Court decided it was A-Okay for Ohio to NOT have to verify almost 200,000 new registrations.

Almost a THIRD of the new registrations for that state are considered fraudulent, but they don’t have to verify them, courtesy of the Supreme Court. What, are they trying to make up for the 2000 Florida fiasco by allowing another in 2008? So much for justice, right, and the American Way, I guess.

Here’s the thing. To “win” an election by stealing votes, by voting fraudulently, through the use of falsified voter registration, and/or the threat of violence should a particular candidate not win, is not democratic, not Democratic, not the American Way, and anathema to any moral or ethical person, Republican,Democrat, Independent, or Undecided.

If Obama “wins” by voter fraud, Carville might be partially right – there might still be people taking to the street, not to riot, but to protest the diminution of our most sacred right: to lawfully cast (ONE) ballot for the candidate of our choice without fear of tampering, fraud, or theft. Now THAT would be worthy of protest.

Obama and his supporters have been complaining the last couple of days, accusing the McCain campaign creating mob mentalities. I have read that they are forming lynching mobs, stirring up anger, and causing division.

And, you know what? The people ARE mad. But you can’t blame it on John McCain and Sarah Palin.

People are sick and tired of being called racist, over and over, and over, and over, and over again for not supporting Obama.

People are sick and tired that every single issue they bring up against Obama is called a racist attack.

People are really sick of hearing that Palin wearing white is a shout out to the KKK and therefore racist.

PUMA’s are pissed off at the lynch mob mentality that formed to paint Hillary and Bill Clinton as racists.

People are pissed off about the caucus fraud that they witnessed, by the Obama camp.

PUMA’s are pissed off at the DNC and their behavior during the Primary.

PUMA’s are angered that Obama and the DNC never spoke out against the vitriol attacks on Hillary.

PUMA’s are destroyed, feeling abandoned by their party.

PUMA’s are pissed off at all the boo’s and shouts that came with the mention of Hillary’s name at Obama rallies.

People are pissed off at the sexist attacks towards Hillary during the primary.

People are pissed off at the vitriol and sexist attacks on Sarah Palin, now.

People are beyond pissed about ACORN and the number of fraudulent registered voters, and Obama’s ties to ACORN. And that Obama gave them $800,000.

People are beyond pale that tax payer money, millions of dollars, has been paying for this fraud.

And that the Democrats attached this to the bailout bill.

People are mad that Obama lied about Wright.

People are insulted that Obama lied about Ayers.

People are disgusted that Obama lied about Rezko.

People are scared about all of Obama’s other questionable associations.

People are sick and tired of the biased pro-Obama media.

People are sick and tired of Obama taking credit for things that he had no hand in.

People are pissed off at the attacks they have endured, from Obama supporters, for months.

People are pissed off at being threatened with riots, should Obama lose.

People are disgusted with Obama’s major flip flops.

People are worried, since learning, about Obama’s socialist past.

People are freaked out by the Obama worship, the militant like groups, the *blue shirts*, the Hitler-esque salutes and symbols, and the children singing videos.

People are pissed off that Obama has very few accomplishments, and is given a pass.

People are pissed off that Obama is caught saying one thing publicly and another thing privately, and is given a pass.

People are pissed off that it is reported that Obama tried to negotiate with Iraq, and delay withdrawal to his benefit, and it is ignored in the media.

People are pissed off that Obama claims to have superior judgment, but makes massive judgment mistakes repeatedly, and is given a pass. The latest one today, wrt to the Hamas meeting.

People are astonished at the fake presidential seals, air force one, and world tours.

People are mad about learning the deceptive polling tactics – not asking which candidate you are supporting, but only asking issue related questions, and then assigning you a candidate.

People are sick and tired of listening to constant crazed attacks on Sarah Palin coming from Hollywood. And idiotic videos from Diddy.

People are sick and tired of being called racist, but the media ignoring that 93% of African Americans voted for Obama.

People are sick and tired of being harassed in the street for wearing a Clinton, or McCain/Palin button.

People are sick and tired of their Pro-Clinton or McCain yard signs being stolen.

People are outraged that their vehicles were vandalized for having Clinton or McCain stickers on them.

People are tired of being terrified by pro-Obama thugs who scream racist charges, and more, while they are sitting in restaurants.

People are sick and tired for doing research and trying to get to know a candidate and are personally attacked for it.

People are sick and tired of having Obama thugs hack their web sites and/or shut them down.

People are sick and tired of Obama supporters who never engage in dialogue or debate, but just resort to personal attacks.

People are sick and tired of enduring months and months of attacks, and listening to biased media coverage, and watching the attacks and lynch mob type behavior on the Clintons, and her supporters, and now McCain and Palin.

And NOW that a few people have stood up and vented that anger, and a few have screamed *terrorist* or *kill him* with the mention of William Ayers, McCain and Palin are being accused of forming lynch mobs, trying to divide the country, and worse.

Obama said that McCain and Palin are stoking anger and division.

It is not McCain and Palin that are stoking anger and causing divide. That was accomplished by Obama, the DNC, the MSM and the thug like behavior of Obama supporters.

People are pissed off. And people are feeling panicked. But, you can’t blame that anger on McCain or Palin. You can blame that on Obama and his supporters.

You can only kick a dog so many times before he finally bites you back.

(I could link to examples of every one of these situations, but frankly didn’t care to spend the time. They are out there. They have all happened. And I am sure there a many more.)

Don’t believe me. Take a look at this sarcastic woman talk about her New Party. And who “Split us into groups” again?

Here’s Donna telling us all about her “New Party”. Check out her snide face and hear her snide voice. Good luck with that Donna. Paul Begala also warns arrogant Donna that she is going to need all the people she is insulting to win this election. Nobody can deny it. We were told to go to hell. Well we don’t plan on doing that, instead we plan to vote.

So now there’s a recent study discussing the very warning given to arrogant ass Donna Brazile, the one who was going to”Change the Demographics of her “New” Democratic Party. Now she needs us. We’ll be back when people like Donna are no longer in charge, for starters. We are going to take back our party. Again. This is not the first time elite socialist fringe snobs tried to hijack our party. It seems the one thing our party learns from history is how to repeat their mistakes over and over and over again.

The majority of this party is not interested in busting their butts at work and then “sharing” their gains with people who don’t. The majority of this party is not interested in sexism and misogyny. The majority of this party does not belong to MoveOn. The majority of this party is not interested in allowing dependent children, off-the-cliff radicals, old hippies stilll on the bong, left over cranks from the failed AmeriKKKan Socialist, Communist, Marxist and Stalinist parties pick presidents.

And the majority of the Democratic Party will NOT be staying home on November 4, Donna. Get that idea out of your head.

A study surprise! reveals that Barack Obama needs us now. Of course, the Race Card has to be played with respect to the “White Vote”. Once more, my party wants to ignore the impact of PUMA at their own peril. So be it.

But it’s pretty safe to say that playing the Race Card every five minutes hasn’t exactly endeared white people to the Obama candidacy. Threatening people and calling them racist has backfired. Refusing to recognize that there are plenty of reasons why people will never vote for Barack Obama that have little to do with his color. Like sexest piggism and socialism, for starters. His rude, threatening and savage followers would be right up there on the list too. People don’t like to feel threatened. And people don’t like to have real issues ignored and twisted into a “Race Card” discussion. It not only ticks them off, but it’s been done and overdone so much by Obama and his surrogates, that the effect is now just a lot of Eye Rolling when it’s heard again. And again. And again.

There are plenty of reasons why many Democrats aren’t interested in Barack Obama. The report mentions the “White working class”. Those are those Bitter Hicks With Guns. Does anybody really expect them to forgive Barack Obama for his tasteless, snobby, downright ignorant remark about them at a fundraiser at Billionaire’s Row in San Francisco? Really?

Does anyone really expect all Hillary Clinton supporters to forgive Barack Obama for his attempt to destroy her and his coordinated attacks on her because she is a woman? Really? Really? How arrogant can you get?

Does anyone really expect all Jews in America to rush to the polls for Obama when every Jidadist in the Middle East has endorsed him? Really?

Does anyone really expect all of us well-educated Hillary supporters to forget being constantly referred to as “Downscale” and “Low Information”? Really?

Does anyone really expect women to give him their undying support after his disgusting behaviors toward women in this campaign? Really? Really?

Does anyone really expect everyone in America to forget Reverend Wright’s disgusting remarks? Does anyone really expect every Italian-American to vote for a guy whose 20-year pastor calls them Garlic-Noses? Really? Really?

Does anyone really expect that Seniors, who have lived long enough to recognize BS when they see it, are endeared en masse by Barack Obama, whose followers have consistently insulted them as “old people”?

Has anyone heard Barack Obama say one helpful thing to Native Americans?

Does anyone really expect all Latinos in Florida to worship a man who wants to talk to Castro with no pre-conditions? Really?

Does anyone really expect all gays and lesbians to be in love with Barack Obama when he refused to have his photo taken with the Mayor of San Francisco? Really?

If all of these people happen to be white, then the real thing the report reveals is that Barack Obama, his surrogates and his followers have insulted plenty of white people in this election season. In droves. The Democrats might like to continue the “Race Card” with their studies, but the truth is, their loss among Democrats consist of the people they insulted and decided they didn’t need any longer. And that’s not going to go away.

Here’s Politico’s take on the report:

In an election year where Barack Obama pledged to change the electorate, the centrist Democratic Leadership Council has weighed into the debate with a detailed report arguing it will be difficult for Obama to earn enough African American and youth support to compensate for enduring Democratic failures with white voters.

The report, titled “Who are the swing voters,” finds that the party must make historic inroads with working class whites in order to create a sustainable presidential majority.

It’s hardly news that the Democratic Party has struggled with white voters. Democrats have not won a majority of whites since 1964. Since 1980 though, Democrats have struggled to even remain competitive among whites, particularly men, and that has allowed Republicans to dominate the last quarter century of presidential politics.

The DLC set out in its analysis, an early draft of which was provided to Politico, to investigate the most influential swing blocs for Democrats. It concluded that slight but significant gains with working class whites— who constitute four in ten voters and were defined by the DLC as white high school graduates without a four-year college degree—is the best means to enlarge the Democratic coalition.

“There has been so much emphasis on new entrants in the electorate, and this report is historic and not predictive, but history tells us it would be an unusual circumstance if we witnessed a massive shift in the electorate,” the DLC analysis reads.

The report calculates that a 10 percent increase in black voter turnout amounts to a 1-percentage point uptick in the overall electorate, assuming all other groups remain constant.

That means that if the black voting rate rises from 60 percent to 67.2, the level of whites as measured by the Census Bureau, it amounts to 1.7 million votes— less than George W. Bush’s margin of victory in 2004.

“None of this means that the 2008 election could not be decided because of a radical shift in the electorate—by a dramatically increased turnout among critical constituencies or by a sharp shift in party identification, for example,” the report reads, “But historical voting patterns say that would be an unusual occurrence.”

The DLC study looked at the exit polls of the last five presidential elections as well as the 2006 midterm election.

The report, authored by Al From and Victoria Lynch, described black voters, self-identified liberals, and “strongly pro-choice” voters as the most influential legs of the Democratic coalition.

The DLC calculated that about four in ten voters in presidential elections are part of this Democratic base. John Kerry won 80 percent of these voters, meaning Democrats only amounted to about a third of the electorate. That number will likely be higher in 2008 as Democrats enjoy a newfound party identification advantage, though one that multiple polls show lessened in late summer.

The report strongly suggests, however, that it will be difficult for the Obama campaign to win if he does not improve Democrats’ appeal to the white working class.

The report also paints two blocs of working class whites:

“A typical male voter in that category will likely be between 30 and 59 years old, live in a suburb or small town in the South or Midwest, and be married with no children living at home. He’s likely to be a Republican or independent, moderate or conservative, not a member of a labor union, pro-life, and in favor smaller government. Finally, he’s most likely to be Protestant but not a weekly churchgoer.”

If Obama’s fall in poll after poll is one we liken to an erosion, we are obliged to describe the following situation in Florida as Obama’s vain attempt to plug a patch of quicksand with bags of Rezko cash. I quote the St. Petersburg Times:

Barack Obama could be on the verge of falling out of contention in Florida.

Despite spending an estimated $8-million on campaign ads in America’s biggest battleground state and putting in place the largest Democratic campaign organization ever in Florida, Obama has lost ground over the summer. Florida has moved from a toss-up state to one that clearly leans toward John McCain, fueling speculation about how much longer the Democratic nominee will continue investing so heavily in the state.

Obama can still win Florida despite the polling gains McCain has made since naming Sarah Palin his running mate, and there is no sign Obama is pulling back in Florida yet. Far from it. Obama allies say he has about 350 paid staffers in the state and about 50 field offices, including in places not known as fertile ground for Democrats, such as Sun City Center, Lake City and Sebring.

But for all the attention to Florida from the Obama campaign, there’s little tangible evidence it’s paying off.

He is farther behind in the state than John Kerry was at this point in 2004, even though McCain began buying Florida TV ads only last week. By this time in 2004, the Bush-Cheney campaign had spent $13-million on Florida TV. In the rolling average of Florida polls compiled by the Web site RealClearPolitics.com, Obama has never taken the lead over McCain in Florida, and the latest average shows him behind by 5 percentage points. They were tied in early August.

Four Florida polls came out this week, with one showing a tied race, the others showing McCain leading by 5 to 8 percentage points.

Florida, in other words, will not respond to Obama’s various entreaties. And for good reason, I might add. For it was Obama, his many surrogates and the corrupt and venal DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee who disenfranchised Florida Democrats during the Democratic primary. Deb Cupples, No Quarter‘s resident expert on Florida politics, described the Obama campaign’s coordinated attempts to debar the full inclusion of Florida’s delegates in the Democratic convention as a “‘Unity’ Shuck and Jive,” a “shuck and jive” that will now have electoral effects.

Allow me to direct our attention to the following data gleaned from Insider Advantage‘s poll of Florida voters earlier this week:

Rasmussen Reports offers similar data.

Obama did not desire unity in May, and Florida Democrats will reciprocate by denying him unity and a Florida victory in November. He can sink millions of dollars of cash from Rezko and other questionable sources in Florida all he wants; he can build 2,000 offices and airdrop 5,000,000 staffers into the state: Florida will simply absorb these resources, for Obama, his surrogates and the DNC agitated that state’s treacherous electoral quicksand. And those who step in quicksand will experience a downward slide.

In an interview posted on the political Web site Politico, Chairwoman Carol Fowler said Republican John McCain picked a running mate “whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”

Fowler later apologized, saying she made the statement during an interview about single-issue voters.

Don’t apologize, “Sweetie”!!111!!!! You helped shave a few more points off of Barky’s White Woman polls. Do more! Please!

“I personally admire and respect the difficult choices that women make everyday, and I apologize to anyone who finds my comment offensive,” Fowler said in a statement.

“I clumsily was making a point about people in South Carolina who may vote based on a single issue. Whether it’s the environment, the economy, the war or a woman’s right to choose, there are people who will cast their vote based on a single issue,” she continued. “That was the only point I was attempting to make.”

You see, that’s the problem. It’s not about you or Donna or Howard or Nancy “being clumsy”. It’s about the confusion we women are causing you. We are confusing you and the rest of The Party, right? Why are so many of us Democratic women confusing our Beloved Democratic Party???? The answer lies in a little story:

A farmer was talking to his neighbor about how expensive it is to feed his horse. His neighbor suggested that he mix sawdust in the horse’s feed for filler.

The neighbor didn’t see the farmer till a month later and he asked how his suggestion worked out. The farmer was very sullen. He said, ” I don’t understand it. I mixed some sawdust in my horse’s feed and he seemed to like it. So I added a little more the next day. And a little more the next day. He seemed to like it so I just increased his sawdust every day. But you won’t believe what happened! Soon as I got that damned horse eating all sawdust, the damned thing died!”

It’s kind of like that Carol. (and Donna, Howard, Nancy-The-Exception)

You entrenched party people have been feeding us that Abortion story for decades. Every four years we had to listen to the same shit from you. We are YOUR party, ladies. We care! If you don’t vote for us they will overturn Roe v Wade. We will protect you!

Funny, really. For one thing, if you CARED, you would have legislated this problem years ago. But then, where’s the profit in that? What would you use to keep us scared enough to vote for all of you again, and again and again. In the meantime, so many of us have grown up listening to your tripe –and you know what? We don’t give a shit!. You’ve been feeding us sawdust! We all know Roe v Wade isn’t going anywhere, so cut the craaaaaaaaap.

There was more sawdust you kept feeding us too. That “Equal pay for women” sawdust. Do you DNC jerks have any idea how long we have been listening to that horseshit? I mean if you can’t fix this problem in decades, don’t you think you all need to move on? We aren’t eating that sawdust any longer either.

How about the Champion for The Poor sawdust? In my not so short life, I haven’t seen you guys help the poor at all, unless you count keeping them poor! You know…wink …wink…just give them enough to keep them voting for you, but God forbid you should give them the incentive to actually get out of poverty and off the government’s programs. That’s not a good idea, right? I mean if you keep them all just poor enough, they will need you for-evah!

The best sawdust story is the one about Equal Rights for Women. Boy you had us eating that slop for so long I can’t even remember when it all started. But the first chance you got to be a bunch of sexist slobs, you grabbed that ring as fast as you could.

Let me be frank. I have NEVER seen so much sexism and misogyny in a primary, or pretty much anywhere for that matter, in my entire life. And I hung out in Corporate America a lot! If you pigs were in Corporate America you would have all been shown to the lobby for your filth.

The DNC stood right by and watched Barack Obama, his filthy TV surrogates, his online pigs-in-training in their parents’ basements and his PR team on MSNBC and CNN harass, torture, insult, embarrass, humiliate and rip the far superior candidate apart–because she was a woman!. Then we watched you drag a mediocre man’s sorry inept ass over the nomination line against the will of superdelegates’ constituents. Talk about “Putting lipstick on a pig”!! You people are sick! You bludgeoned us because we are women and now you want us to eat more of your sawdust over an “issue” you’ve been using on us for decades????? Are you kidding or what????Do you have any idea at all what a wake-up call that was for us women with brains and some life experience? Anybody? Anybody?

The Democratic Party’s behavior toward Hillary Clinton this year was beyond revolting. We understand exactly what that means. It means you have all been hypocrites for as long as women have been your captives. We understand now that hanging out with you is akin to living in an abusive relationship. So don’t be bringing us flowers after you broke our jaws. You might fool younger women who haven’t been around too many blocks. They are complacent because they didn’t have to fight for their rights, and you know it—so the DNC and Barack Obama take advantage of them. If they can’t see what’s in front of their own faces, well then let them eat vibrating cell phones! As for the rest of us, we aren’t buying. We know exactly what is going on here. You are killing us with the sawdust in our feed. We choose to survive instead.

Frankly, I find it downright stupid that, after all we have been forced to stand by and watch, you all wonder why we defend Sarah Palin. Do you really think we don’t comprende that under Barack Obama, women would have a whole lot more to worry about than Roe v Wade? Do you not think that we understand that crap rolls downhill and the attitude of a President permeates the workplace and the home? Do you think we’ve eaten so much of your sawdust that we don’t understand completely what is going on here?

My party! The Party that kept so many women carrying your water for you for years, when all you gave us in the end was more sawdust in our feed. The only Sharia thing you didn’t do to Hillary Clinton was set her on fire! And that’s probably only because here in America that’s against the law. So far……

…..and now you all simply cannot understand why we women aren’t “one-issue” voters. Well let me explain, then: It isn’t about “one issue” with us. It’s about all of them. All of those issues you dangled over our heads for too long, when it is now abundantly clear the Democratic Party never gave a shit about us at all except to use “issues” as a means to keep us in line on Election Day.

You could have had a winner. But you now have a loser. We aren’t eating the sawdust any longer. On November 4, you and the rest of the Democratic Party hypocrites can eat your own sawdust for a change. Maybe then you all will Get It. Forget Party loyalty from now on. We women aren’t going to suck up to any party any longer. You are going to have to show us your chops instead of flapping your lips if you want our votes. We are the new Independents. When you start looking out for us, we’ll give you a try as a swing block. And that goes for both parties, and right now, your forced choice is not our choice. You had best think about that next time because we have NO intention of ever putting up with what we saw done to the dignity of women this year again. Donna said you didn’t need us, dandy. You can’t have us. But make no mistake, we are watching. We are watching what you do to Sarah Palin.

And one more thing: Every time you idiots trot out Hillary to clean up that inept Pig Barack Obama’s mess, you open the wounds you created and we get even more pissed off.

Copyright © 2008 Uppity Woman. All rights reserved.

My oldest brother sent me the piece Gloria Steinem wrote on Gov. Palin, an elitist, patronizing piece in which she diminishes people who hunt (not understanding, I guess, that many people hunt to put FOOD on the table, especially in these difficult economic times), among other smears. So, I felt compelled to write him back. A lot of this is information those who have been paying attention already know:

I am not an apologist for Sarah Palin, but I find the argument that SHE is inexperienced as Steinem said to be laughable. The DNC selected the least experienced candidate ever, one who refuses to make available ANY paper trail at all – no college or law school transcripts, no medical records, no passports, no birth certificates, and claims he had NOT ONE PAPER or DATE BOOK available from his time in the IL Senate (which is part-time service, btw). One who has no legislative accomplishments of note to his name. Never mind the LONG list of his sordid associates which throw his whole “good judgment” stance out the window.

Or his lack of chairing ONE meeting of the European Affairs Subcommittee, which oversees Afghanistan, and now claims that we need to do more abt Afghanistan,and who wants to return to the foreign policy of DONALD RUMSFELD…If this was BUSH, the Progressives would be going batshit crazy screaming our fool heads off.


But for some reason, this is all fine and dandy. Never mind all of the university professors who are now shrugging off his constant plagiarizing (and his picking a running mate who is also a plagiarizer), an act that can get students thrown OUT of universities. Why? I really don’t get this infatuation with this man! Without a teleprompter, he can barely even talk!! But he is “eloquent,” and has “good judgm ent.” Um, no. And he is sexist as all hell, to boot.

And for some reason, Obama is constantly comparing himself to the VP pick, not the presidential nominee. Much easier for him to pick on a woman than a man, as he demonstrated time and again during this campaign. Flipping Hillary off, brushing her off his shoulder and his shoe, having “99 Problems BUt a Bitch Ain’t One” playing when he won Iowa. Class act this guy. Oh, and for what it’s worth – he lives 1 1/2 blocks away from Bill Ayers, who lives right down the street from the Farrakhan Compound. What a coincidence.

Oh – is now when I tell you that my brother has a PhD., and developed some major software, whose clients include NASA? Yeah. He’s supposed to be smart (my younger brother and his wife – both PhDs – also are big Obama supporters, at least my brother is. My sis-in-law is a “Vote Democrat” no matter what more than anything.). Just goes to show that there is a difference between being educated and having common sense. I can say that because I have BOTH!!! Ahem.

Here’s what he wrote back:

These are interesting accusations. Do you know these things for a fact? What is your source of information? Is there some doubt about the fact that Obama was elected president of the Harvard Law Review? You don’t get to that place by being a flaky biscuit. Is there any doubt about the fact that McCain was at the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy?

I don’t follow you with the Donald Rumsfield foreign policy thing. What do you mean?

One thing I can say for sure. I have seen Obama in many interviews and town hall type conversations, besides the podium speeches. He has always impressed me with his speaking ability in off the cuff situations. This is a sharp dude.

I also like Joe Biden very much. He is a solid, decent, knowledgeable person.

At the end of the day, this is about policies, not personalities. Who do you think is going to best implement the objectives of Hillary Clinton? If you say McCain-Palin, then I don’t see how you get there.

Oh, boy. Evidently, he does not have the same desire for sources when others are “accused,” but whatever. And yes, he DID go there about the personalities. Here’s my response:

Yes, I know these things for a fact. This is what I do every day, all day long.

I don’t know if I will even vote this year, so don’t assume I am voting for McCain/Palin. I can say that McCain is an honorable man, and has given his entire life i n service to this country. That means something. He is also moderate, and a reformer, something Obama will NEVER be (oh – today’s BIG report is about Obama raging on Palin, particularly about the Bridge to Nowhere, which she did get rid of afterall – and which HE VOTED FOR TWICE!!! He claimed, “Palin Can’t Just Make Stuff Up!” No, that purview belongs to Obama alone.). But Obama will never get my vote. He should never have assumed he would.

So that’s how my morning started – not at ALL about what I was going to write today. But you never know what is going to come up, I reckon. And I know there is evern more about Obama, but I figured I was pushing my luck with him actually reading it this far.

Ah, families…

And one of the people who foisted Obama on us, who backed him but claimed he wasn’t until the beginning of June, is none other than my representative, and House Whip, Jim Clyburn. And he did it by demeaning Bill Clinton. You know, Bill Clinton, the one who spoke the other night so eloquently, as only he can? The first “black president”? The one under whom our economy was so good? That one?

Let me refresh your memory on what Jim Clyburn said about Bill Clinton, on our “friend,” Keith Olbermann’s show:

Oh, and Rep. Clyburn? The “WILL OF THE PEOPLE” WAS overturned by the SuperDelegates when they supported OBAMA, not Clinton! So many of the counties, districts, and STATES she won had the SDs go to Obama in clear contravention to the will of the people. So, how do all of those folks who wrote you feel about this NOW, or do they not care as long as THEIR candidate won? DO they not care HOW he got it as long as HE got it?

Oh – and Keith was right – there WAS “traitorous” acts – and they were perpetrated by the RBC of the DNC, and the Obama campaign with caucuses. Whatever. As long as it’s not Hillary, right?

Anywho, so during the primary, Clyburn had some tough stuff to say about Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton who has done more for the African American community than ANY other president. That one. After President Clinton’s outstanding speech the other night, Jim Clyburn was interviewed by Judy Woodruff. Here is the transcript from that interview in an article, Delegates Rate Speech “Outstanding“:

JIM LEHRER: Let’s go now to Judy Woodruff, who’s on the floor there among the — the Clinton reaction, Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Jim, I am here on the floor with the third-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, Representative Jim Clyburn of the state of South Carolina.

What did you think of the president’s speech?

REP. JIM CLYBURN (D), South Carolina: A great speech, outstanding. As I said earlier today, I expect for Bill to be Bill. And he was Bill tonight. I really believe that he teed it up well for Barack Obama, and I think tomorrow night we’ll — he’ll do what he has to do tomorrow night.

JUDY WOODRUFF: There were some differences between you and some others with President Clinton with some of the language he used during the tough primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the question of whether he injected race into the campaign at a couple of points. Is all forgiven on that front?

REP. JIM CLYBURN: Well, I never had a problem. I made it very clear. I admire and respect Bill Clinton. I think he was a great president. I was pleased to be in the Congress to help with that, so I never had a problem.

I do believe, though, that a lot of things that got said could have had more than one meaning. And it got carried in more than one way.

And so I still think that he is an outstanding person, and I have no animosity toward him at all.

JUDY WOODRUFF: How much will his support — how much difference will his support make in this general election campaign?

REP. JIM CLYBURN: I think it means a great amount of difference, especially to our base supporters out there. These people love and admire the Clintons. And they really needed to hear what they heard last night and what we’ve heard tonight.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Congressman Jim Clyburn, the House majority whip, thank you very much.

REP. JIM CLYBURN: Thank you.

Well, golly gee, Jim. YOU may not have any animosity toward Bill Clinton, but I imagine he might just have some toward YOU for disparaging him, for demeaning him, for implying (at the very least) that he was a RACIST. Yeah, he might not be too keen on YOU right about now. You tried to ruin his reputation, and YOU have no animosity toward HIm. That’s rich. Really rich.

But here’s the thing about BIll Clinton: he has class. He may have grown up dirt poor, but the man has class. And integrity. You and your candidate could sure take a lesson or a thousand from Bill AND Hillary on class and graciousness.

You know, now that it is official that Obama is The One, I have said I would vote downticket. But that means voting for Jim Clyburn. Frankly, there is no way in HELL I’m going to support that man after what he did to Hillary and Bill. Hmmm. Looks like I might not even be going to the polls for the first time in my adult life this time around (and before you tell me that I MUST vote for McCain, I assure you – I will give it serious consideration as a way to make clear to the DNC that I will not support a Party that lies, cheats, and steals. I am not there yet. As a lifelong Democrat, that is a hard, hard place for me to go. So can we just leave it at that, that I’ll think about it? Great. Thanks.).

The DNC is broken. People like Jim Clyburn helped break it. I can think of no better reward for him than to lose his seat. Or at least being the Whip. Hey, here’s a thought – how about Dennis Kucinich being the Whip? He hasn’t trashed the Clintons, or painted them as racist. He holds all of the positions Progressives hold dear. Sounds like a good option to me! Maybe he should push for THAT position!! Oh, that would be FUN to watch, wouldn’t it? Whoever, however, it would sure be nice for Clyburn to lose that power position he holds, wouldn’t it? I think so. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving guy, IMHO.

Jim, you may not have animosity toward President Clinton, but I sure have animosity toward you for what you did. To quote another line from The American President: “You have bigger problems…You just lost my vote.”

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.