A Pretend “Milestone”: More Creative Spin from Obama’s Campaign
By Deb Cupples on May 21, 2008 at 8:57 PM in Current Affairs
Just after Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama last night in Kentucky’s primary (65% - 30%), the Obama campaign sent out an email signed by Obama himself. The relevant text is this:
"[I]t’s clear that tonight we have reached a major milestone on this journey.
"We have won an absolute majority of all the delegates chosen by the people in this Democratic primary process."
Basically, Obama used 10 words to describe what for months has only required 2: "pledged" and "delegates."
How does winning a majority of pledged delegates qualify as a "major milestone"? It doesn’t, because winning the majority of pledged delegates does not make Obama the nominee. Period.
Under the Democratic Party’s un-democratic rules, super-delegates can vote for whomever they want (and they can switch), regardless of the pledged-delegate totals or popular-vote count.
Facts aside, some media have given air time to Obama’s surrogates to create potentially misleading headlines and sound bites about the pretend "milestone."
For example, a CNN video shows John Roberts interviewing Tom Daschel, who tries to persuade viewers how important this pretend "milestone" is.
Roberts asks : "If it doesn’t mean it’s the end, what exactly does it mean and why point it out?"
Daschel re-states that it’s very important.
Roberts asks (again): "But what does it mean?"
Daschel spoke but failed to adequately explain.
It’s all about creating vague impressions, which is why (I suspect) that Obama’s email doesn’t talk about winning a "majority of pledged delegates" — but instead talks about winning a "majority of all the delegates chosen by the people."
This gives the impression that the will of the majority of voters is to name Obama as the nominee.
Actually, the popular vote is the best indicator of the "will of the people," and we won’t know which candidate has won the popular vote until after all primaries are finished on June 3.
Thus, Obama’s vague claims that most Dem voters are on his side is — at best — premature. Mission Accomplished, anyone?
Another issue: many of Obama’s victories do not necessarily reflect the "will fo the people," because more than a dozen of his victories were in states that had caucuses (not primaries).
Caucuses tend to draw far fewer voters than primaries do, partly because caucuses are held in a shorter period of time. Generally, caucuses attract people with flexible schedules and people who are politically active (hardly a representative sampling of most of America’s voters).
That’s why caucuses are less representative of a state’s voting population (i.e., less democratic). Check out the examples below (3 caucus states v. 3 primary states):
……………………………..Delegates…………….#VotersWyoming (caucus) ..……..12…………………….8,753
Georgia (primary)………….12………………1,046,485
Hawaii (caucus)…………….17…………………..37,247
Rhode Island(primary)……18…………………184,904
Iowa (caucus)………………..45…………………….2,501
Oklahoma (primary)……….38…………………401,230
.
The Caucuses: fewer than 50,000 people decided who got
Wyoming’s, Hawaii’s and Rhode Island’s combined 74 delegates.
The Primaries: more than
1.6 million people decided who got Georgia’s, Rhode
Island’s and Oklahoma’s combined 68 delegates.
In short, at least 32 times more voters participated in the states’ primaries listed above than in the caucuses — yet more delegates were awarded based on the caucuses.
The upshot: Obama’s having won delegates from more than a dozen caucuses has made him appear more popular than he may actually be among the broader population of those states’ Democrats.
Between now and the convention, super-delegates must decide which candidate will have a better chance of beating John McCain in November — an election that won’t be about caucuses, disproportionately weighted delegates, odd arithmetic, or clever spin.
November will involve a straight, winner-take-all system of capturing states’ electoral
votes based on how the actual majority of a state’s voters vote.
Memeorandum has commentary.
Let me go through the numbers without making your head spin.
After Kentucky and Oregon, Obama has an official popular vote lead of 449,486.
This does not include Iowa (where Obama first broke from the pack), Nevada (where Hillary won the popular vote narrowly), Maine (where Obama won easily) or Washington state (another strong Obama state). Why? Because these caucus states don’t officially report their popular votes. But if we’re going to truly count all the votes, official and nonofficial, as Hillary advocates, you can’t very well not include caucus states.
Adding in the unofficial tally from caucus states, as estimated by realclearpolitics.com based on official caucus turnout and the number of local delegates selected at the precinct level, that gives Obama a lead of 559,708.
Now we come to Florida and Michigan, whose popular votes Hillary says should be counted. The argument for counting them is no better than for counting the caucus states (and maybe worse, considering that these states violated party rules by moving their primaries up on the calendar, and no one campaigned there). But for the sake of argument let’s count ‘em. That gives Hillary a lead of 63,373.
HILLARY WINS POPULAR VOTE!
well then she is ahead, even if you give some portion of the undecided votes in Mich.(some of it goes to Edwards) she is still ahead, isn’t she?
Actually, when counting the popular vote, some of the caucus states do also hold a primary, Wa for instance, big win for Obama in the caucus where all the delegates come from, but very nearly a tie in our primary. Nebraska too, Obama swept the caucus, but barely beat Hillary in the primary, only about 3 thousand votes. The media portrays Obama as having this huge Nebraska win, but then they neglect to mention that Obama probably won’t win Nebraska in the fall anyway. His rock star status in Nebraska is based on 46,000. Well, Mccain took over 118,000.
Seriously, Obama’s wins are being misrepresented in the media. They’re pretending he’s going to win red states, they’re claiming he’s won 70% in caucus states by completely ignoring their primaries, etc, etc. People are really being bamboozled.
Speaking of red states, consider this magenta colored state - Virginia. John King and his Big Board are always throwing Virginia into the equation of O’s changing the map with his victories. They say he can’t win WVA, OH or KY, but he can take Virginia. Not so fast! A poll published yesterday in the Richmond Times Dispatch has Johnny Mac beating both Hillary and BO in Virginia, not by insignificant margins. I have long felt that O cannot win in Virginia despite his large primary win. They are delusional if they overlook the George Allen voters and the military voters.
So what? there is one vote obama won’t get - Mine.
correction…. 6 votes that he will not get, your and the five people in our house.
The rules are what they are. I’ve already commented on the Clinton campaign’s tactical and strategic error of ignoring the caucuses in small states, so I won’t do so here. This argument regarding the popular vote in caucuses and primaries is irrelevant because the convention counts the delegates, and not voters.
HOWEVER, that same argument is completely relevant when it’s used to persuade the party’s superdelegates to look to a candidate’s prospective electability, and not the raw delegate count. And it’s the superdelegates who will ultimately decide this thing. Therefore, try to contact your state’s superdelegates accordingly, and tell them to look to the voters and use common sense.
Your premise assumes that absolutely no one whatsoever supports Obama in Michigan. Be honest with yourself - that’s probably not true.
Not so fast
There’s a problem with counting Michigan in these totals. Obama wasn’t on the ballot there. You can say this was his own choice, but that doesn’t change the fact that had he been on the Michigan ballot he would have received a lot of popular votes. How many?
Try 238,168. That’s the number of Michiganders who voted for “uncommitted.” Were they possibly genuinely abstaining? Maybe a few hundred of them at most. The rest were clearly Obama supporters who launched a grass-roots campaign. Everyone in Michigan knew on January 15 that a vote for “uncommitted” was a vote for Obama.
That means that by a generous definition of popular votes (and remember, Clinton wants to enfranchise as many people as possible in her count), Obama leads by about 166,000 votes.
Except a vote for uncommitted was also a vote for John Edwards who was very much in the race at the time. So at best he leads by about 100,000 if you unfairly give him any votes there.
Not so fast yourself.
Edwards encouraged “uncommitted” votes in Michigan as well. Because we can’t read the voters’ minds, “uncommitted” they must stay.
Why is Obama blocking a fucking revote?
That is the OBVIOUS solution.
He is blocking the vote because….Michigan is bigger than MOTOWN…
And Florida is full o CRACKER HISPANICS AND JEWS….that is why he blocked the vote….
Actually, a vote for uncommitted was also a vote for Edwards, Richardson, etc. Hillary’s name, and the name of a few other lesser known candidates were on the ballot, all the others were not.
All the uncommitted votes cannot be attributed to Obama, especially since he was polling under Edwards in MI prior to the primary.
And not only does dean want to give these delegates to obama he wants to give him ten of Hillary’s.
By your logic, if Obama wasn’t on the ballot in any of the states, we couldn’t fairly count any of Hillary’s votes, because after all, he wasn’t on the ballot, so it “wasn’t fair.”
Hey, I wasn’t on the ballot in Michigan either. I would have received, I think, about a hundred thousand votes in Michigan if I had been. Hey, make it 200,000. Why not?
And the “estimated” caucus votes are a joke. How many people voted in the Iowa caucuses? 100,000? 500,000? We can’t know, and that’s not Hillary’s problem.
What I know for CERTAIN is that Obama didn’t get any votes in Michigan, because he CHOSE not to put his name on the ballot. So he doesn’t deserve any “estimated” votes there (we have an actual count, we don’t need to estimate) or delegates, either.
exactly.
if they want to include caucus votes in the popular vote count, they should include them - one person, one vote. so if 800 show up, that’s 800, not 80000 or whatever based on some bs projection.
in my state, texas, the only people allowed to vote in the caucuses were people who had already voted in the primary. so, by definition, every caucus voter got their vote counted twice. then to use some bs projection to pretend they each represent 1000 or whatever, just compounds the lunacy.
and texas proves the point - hillary won the primary and allegedly lost the caucus (counting stopped at 40% done due to irregularites, etc.). since the caucus voters are a subset of the primary voters, all the caucus shows is which of the primary voters were able to willing to go vote the second time. of course, obambi got more delegates - what else is new with our crooked system?
(of course, lots of people apparently “voted” in the caucuses who didn’t vote in the primaries - obamaites filling out forms with many names and turning them in, etc.)
Right- the “we can’t count Michigan because Obama didn’t compete there” is an argument that is beyond brain dead. It’s like a whiny fifth grader claiming that the results of a footrace shouldn’t count because he didn’t participate.
Obama chose not to put his name on the Michigan ballot. Then he told Iowa and New Hampshire audiences that he, unlike Hillary, was respecting their Sainted, Holy Right to be First. Now he wants at the very least delegates he didn’t win from Michigan.
I didn’t buy a lottery ticket, but I estimate that if I had, I would have won a million dollars. Where’s my money? It’s not fair that the winner gets all the money, I didn’t buy a ticket! Waaaahhhhhhhhh!!!
YEs, he did CHOOSE to remove his name from the ballot. That’s one way to invalidate an entire state’s election.
What part of obama doesn’t get my vote don’t you understand?
Edwards and Richardson pulled their names off the ballot in Michigan - so not all of those would go to Obama.
With a big win in Puerto Rico, Clinton could possibly erase that margin (plus several thousand more that Obama is expected to net in Montana and South Dakota). She could then proclaim that with the help of Puerto Rican voters who cannot vote in a general election, she is the popular vote winner.
Actually Puerto Rican voters are U.S. citizens so any that move to the mainland and register to vote can vote in the general election. They are all potential voters, just like voters in any state or territory and their voices are important.
Rulz are rulz, isn’t that what you guys say? One PR vote is the same as yours or mine.
Seen Cook County numbers, 429,000 vote lead for Obama — what nonsense! So let us talk numbers — tell me how many dead people were walking to the polls?
This line, 2501, what a joke! They catapulted this unprepared hack of a candidate and now we are in the mess we are in. Hurray to the caucus king.
Iowa (caucus)………………..45…………………….2,501
Cook County is Obama’s home country.
Not for long, as the Rezko/Operations Board Games trials go one. The voters of IL are already requesting a bill to recall the Gov, who, like obama, was involved in Rezko.
Remember, he couldn’t even pull in IND, where the North gets Chicago media, that they claimed would help him. Obviously not so. Even his AA Gary mayor chum, holding back North Lake County for hours couldn’t hold back the tide.
Do not expect bo’s early popularity in IL will necessarily hold at all. People there thought he was a hero until they started finding out he’s a crook. On top of which, his leftist AA crew there have been stirring up trouble for this city of Chicago, which is VERY frowned upon there. Until the last few months, Chicago had low crime rate. Recently it’s soared. Deep things brewing in IL.
The “Clinton Supporters Count Too” site is up and running. Join the boycott of NBC/ MSNBC; I already sent in several protest emails to them and their advertisers. The link is:
http://www.clintonsupporterscounttoo.org/
thanks
i will post it everywhere too
I boycott CNN, too. except for Lou Dobbs.
thanks for the link. went, joined, donated.
saw a very interesting comment. person said tv networks get ratings every time you stay on their channel for 6 minutes. i’m in complete msnbc and cnn boycott and almost never tune in nbc, either. but if you occasionally tune them in and don’t want to help their ratings, be sure to tune away before 6 minutes are up!
Actual Votes Cast (which is still the ONLY way to count votes)
Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)**
Obama 17,242,495 47.5%
Clinton 17,416,090 48.0%
Clinton +173,595 +0.48%
the biggest scam of them all is people believe any of these caucus results that helped obama rack up his numbers do any justice to the idea of ‘representing the will of the people’. . . he has manipulated his followers and they have all drank their share of kool-aid. its sickening, they think there is an actual democratic process in play here. either way its a brokered nominee, since neither get the correct “magic number” without superdelegates. so, who is really choosing? not the people, not unless the popular vote picks the winner. what are they so afraid of? losing. superdelegates are also doing exactly what their description allows them to do - make their own choice, which is why the massachusettes senators and many others who’s states went to clinton, have jumped on the obama bandwagon. backroom deals, arm twisting, money, its all involved. obama will not be a legitimate nominee in the eyes of many unless he has the popular vote of ALL 50 SATES.
hillary will win popular vote.
she’s the democrats only shot.
obama is the biggest scam, if he is the nominee, everyone will learn a lot more about him and his dodgy past and his thin as can be record. they’ll learn about how he pushed his way into illinois state senate by getting other people taken off the ballot by searching for ways to do so. sleezbag move. oh no, smart politics if you ask his followers. he’s a total sham, a fraud and a lie, a wolf in sheeps clothing, the emperor has no clothes. you’ll see.
santa claus doesn’t exist folks.
Deb I like your tone. Period. That’s just how I feel about it.
The idiot Obamanites have to have it spelled out
short and sweet. Period. No, you aren’t winning.
Period. No you aren’t going to win. Period.
Thanks.
Toll free,
Thanks you!
Not so fast!
This is the DNC and as of now your votes are meaningless if its not what they want to do.
Where the hell do you all think you live? the United States of America?
Not anymore, this is now the Unified Communes of Obamaland.
Last Year in my Town..I met and talked with a retired Navy man(Roy) who was running for the most prominent City Council position ..whose district covered the Down Town area and waterfront…He was running on a position of Accountability and fisical Responsibility ..
His opponents ewre all downtown Businessmen who totally supported the Mayor and his pet projects…they most likely would sit on the city council and ruber stamp anything the mayor wanted..
I was impressed with Roy and his honesty and sincerety..and I campaigned for Him…In spite of the fact that the Two Town newspapers and the Mayor endorsed Roys opponent..and his serious underdog status…He campaigned like Hillary does.. Got His message out by hard work and going door to door…and He WON the Election and is doing an Outstanding job as the PEOPLES Advocate on the City Council..
The Point is…Never give up the Fight..and its never over until the Elections and the Final Votes..are counted..
Roy never gave up..even when the Odds and Local machinery was against him..He won on Principal
and because He EARNED the Peoples respect..
Now if we can just make sure the vote counts are accurate, and that’s where I worry.
They’ll fix the numbers, no matter what.
It’s beginning to look more and more like Dean purposely skewed MI and FL for the bamster.
What a nice message?
sorry, I didn’t mean to put a question mark after that.
The numbers here could not be clearer. The Democratic Party is obviously not very democratic. Still its leadership persists in forging ahead with its farcical rules.
Conclusion: The Democratic Party leadership is seriously deranged and the media is seriously corrupt for catering to this insanity.
the media is catering to its corporate owner.
General Electric, AOL Time Warner et al.
And the body politic wouldn’t give a rat’s ass about Affirmative Action by then, either.
No way of trying to get to the head of the line out of guilt, or the “past”. Either Obama sinks or swims.
sinks
sinks
sinks
sinks
sinks
Ok, you guys win. . .Hillary can be president of Appalachia and have “Dueling Banjos” played at her inauguration.
Beats the misogynistic Jay-Z songs from Obama rallies.
Welcome to the real world,
Real world? From a supporter of the candidate whose campaign resembles nothing so much as a Benny Hinn production (complete with fainting worshippers) and who thinks there are 57 states? You Obamabutts have been drinking the koolaid so long, you’re beginning to believe your own lies.
My God, I didn’t know that Appalachia has extended into California, Ohio, New York, New Jersey, Massachusettes, Florida, Michigan, Texas. It is a new country.
You do realize you are practicing racism when you marginalize and stereotype white people.
As usual the pod people are bloody hypocrites.
When whites vote for Hillary in 60-70% margins its called racism.
When blacks vote for Obama in 85-95% margins is called democracy.
You have to love the spin.
White people?
Obama supports Odinga, who believes in the ethnic cleansing of his own countrymen.
But that doesn’t count, right?
Disgusting.
Where IS Samantha Powers?
Hypocritical, stupid scum.
I just wrote to Dean regarding the very attitude you expressed. He wrote to say I should protest McCain’s ties to lobbyists on his campaign staff. I wrote back that I preferred that the Democrats get busy cleaning our own house.
Not one leader in this Democratic Party has stood up and spoken out against the absolute dismissive, elitist attitude such as you expressed. Not one, except Hillary. I’ve blushed watching so-called party leaders speak on TV for Obama expressing the spirit of your rude remark in words that left no doubt about the attitude toward good people in states that Obama lost: Ohio took the hit from his staffer, who said they were desperate and easily lied to (in short, stupid, unlike her who showed such brilliance that her remarks ended up being world news). In Pennsylvania, residents were told they were “bitter and clinging to God and Guns.” I guess only well-educated church-goers really “get” God.
In WVA, the racist label was slapped on even though exit polls didn’t really support that. In fact, it was less than in states dominated by AA voters. Kentucky residents were treated to the same type of labeling.
I have always just let people make remarks such as this, knowing that it reflects upon their own lack of class as they step on others to make themselves feel superior. That’s the root of racism, sexism, elitism, and all other forms of discrimination that are rife in our society.
But it’s time to start speaking out.
It’s not OK to be so elitist. Nobody with a shred of decency is going to want to be in this party that has gloated in this manner all season. I’m embarassed that I’m a Democrat right now because of this type of talk.
I realize you’re just posting on line, but you’re speaking the new language that I hear our politicians speak, while wondering why nobody will vote for him.
It’s very, very offensive.
I sent out a letter to the uncommited super delegates today and got a response back from Vince powers:
“I have received a number of similar emails form the “Rule or Ruin” crowd. Bottom line, there will be more voters who care about America this November than sore losers and as a consequence Sen Obama will be the elected President.
vince powers”
I responded that i was sure fox news would be thrilled to hear of how the DNC leaders are now dealing with dissenters in the party and he responded with:
“Please forward my email to fox or anyone else.
Sore losers who espouse the “rule or ruin” philosophy such as yourself obviously do not care about the future of America.”
Got to love the in the tankers.
Unbelievable. They are so unprofessional. I told my friend today that I think the problem is that we’re all paying attention. They have to have been this unprofessional all along, and I just didn’t know it. LOL*
Now, everyone in America knows it!
Lordy, what a year.
I remain cheerful that this is going to be for the best. Something more decent has to come out of this.
BTW, did you guys see that the Dawg gave an interview on the race card stuff?
well, vince sure told us how much he cares about us. he just figures obambi will magically bring in enough others to replace us.
they can call us sore losers. they can call us racist. they can call us old. they can call us stupid. they can call us bitter. they can call us…………whatever. doesn’t matter. we’re not voting for obambi. and obambi is NOT going to magically find enough voters to replace us (unless soros bribes diebold…..oops - could happen).
hillary or mccain. no other option.
cal made a funny. lets hear anther one when President McCain is sworn in come January.
What an ugly, mean-spirited thing to say. How do you benefit from saying such things?
Naw, something more appropriate for dumb assed history revisionist racist blue bellies…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GVIAypsnh8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVJrv5V-uMY
and for good measure…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlUaZlyct5M
Not a problem.
At Obama’s inauguration, Rev. Wright can give the opening prayer. Al Sharpton can sit beside Michelle on the podium.
And and all the Chicago machine crooks, including Mayor Daley, can get cabinet positions.
Thank you so much for the piece. I’ve been waiting for someone to offer a simple, easy-to-follow piece. This tells the story.
Good evening Ann!
Howdy…..btw, I saw that I was wrong this morning. I think it was you whom I was talking about the DNC takeover deal by Obama?
Anyway, I found a better story, and it’s correct. I was wrong.
He IS moving to take it over.
Dean will be out.
obama looked around at the Dem leadership.
He saw republicans pushing Reid and Pelosi around. Hell even Rush Limbaugh a talk show host schooled Reid.
obama figured he could do it too.
LOL*……good point. He was right. He knows he can’t push Hillary around. He looked downright scared of her in the earlier debates.
O/T
Murder will out Obama in more ways than one.
Let’s indulge in a little murder mystery here. In writing “fiction” one must strive to make things
“authentic.” (Obama lacks this skill in his writing and in his foreign and domestic policy. But I digress..) Authentic doesn’t mean following objective fact, just that the work holds true to itself– to its own basic constructs. So, bear with me, while I take you on the writing of a murder mystery. (It’s also a political thriller!)
A young politician has a taste for the boys, but an insatiable drive for political success. He’s a big of a psychopath/sociopath (let’s not split hairs, here). He’s married, as all young politicians must be to succeed. He has a wife with an equally ruthless sense of political amibition (Lady MacBeth
in a bad Jackie-O hair-do). Now suddenly, it looks like he will get a chance to move forward. “Oh darling, our dreams are about to come true.” But there’s a problem. Somebody wants to TALK about the young politicans indiscretions. That’s not fair. He can’t be questioned. Being on the down low is supposed to be a private affair (snark). And yet, someone isn’t playing by the rules. Some clown named Larry Sinclair has popped up and wants to talk to Obama about “coming clean” (will the unintentional double entendres ever end?). Obama
(let’s just call the young political Obama because young politician takes so long to write) has a special friend call Sinclair to see how many people Sinclair has talked to… how much damage control has to be done. Only problem is Donald Young is a fellow traveler. He’s had “relations” with Obama as well… and he tells Sinclair this. It’s only natural one guy talking to another about what’s going on, what’s at stake, how do we deal with this.
It’s called being “authentic”. But Obama doesn’t understand this. (not knowing how to be authentic himself-in any shape, way or form). Obama is told by Young that Young has told Sinclair of their
“relationship.” Now there is a second thread to this murder mystery (all good ones have at least one or two sub-plots, you know). Obama has friends who are very unsavory. Friends like Rezko. Rezko is no
stranger to violence. In fact, one of the main witnesses against him chose to wear a wire only after
a “certain individual” gave him a nice solid threat
(threats you can hold on to). So Obama turns to uncle Tony and shrugs… “wha am I gonna do, Tone?”
And now we fast forward to three corpses. Donald Young is dead… murdered. No question about that.
And two other members of the church of trinity. Both of these men AA gay guys. All within 40 days.
Three murders. Now how do you stop a “rumor” from spreading? How do you think Tony would do it? In a murder mystery having authenticity, it would be obvious what was going on. Tony (or any other unsavory pal of Obama—and damn, that list goes on and on and on…), Tony kills three people. Who do you think is going to come forward and speak about about this? Come speak to the media, we have a coffin waiting for you. The only problem is, we have a character in the book (there always is one, you know– there has to be for dramatic effect… for authenticity. Larry Sinclair still is saying
“whoa”, what happened here? And the Obamaphiles, as brainless as Obama, make such a stink, that it is obvious that the story is true. I’m waiting to see Part II. In part two of the mystery, the detective who will crack (uh oh, double entendre again) the case shows up. Who will it be?
Obama is gay?
Well, this explains why big orange is so attracted to him.
I can’t go with this story. I have no problem that the drug use might have led to something at one point, but the guy seems like he’s trying to scam for money.
Anyway, I really do not care what politicians do in the backseat or in their bedrooms.
And the murder stuff just looks too hinky.
Sorry.
You should read up on it.
The drug use is certainly pertinent.
I look at them all, the more absurd sometimes the more true, it seems.
At the very least, Sinclair was able to establish a record of dealing with Young, from what I’ve read.
In addition, Rev Manning is said to have proof Obama is on the down low, or low down, I forget which, and Larry alluded to some uncouth behavior.
Perhaps there is a record of failry recent drug use by Obama.
Stuart Levine, also of the IL combine was a gay drug user…
i don’t care what he does to whom.
however, millions of people do. and if that’s the info it takes to make them vote against him, rather than his ridiculous lack of qualification, his complete dishonesty, etc., so be it.
hillary or mccain. no other option.
It’s plausible. I’m not dismissing it.
sounds like a great novel that should come out this summer.
some see probable truth, some don’t. but this year’s political environment has oh so clearly proven that truth is irrelevant anyway.
i’m in the probable truth camp - obambi clearly has identity issues. and he clearly doesn’t give a shit about anyone but himself. and he admits to drug use. he associates with terrorists. he lies constantly. he uses and destroys people for his own purposes. etc. a pattern of behavior that indicates nothing is beneath him. of course, that’s just my impression. it also may be the impression of millions of others. you could have a best seller on your hands.
Since March Hillary has beat Obama by 400,000 I think is news worthy. I better let the BBC know
This will all work out.
The revolt within the party is making Dean pee in his pants.
Turn the heat up some more now!
The US MSM can ignore the truth but the party insiders know the truth. They can no longer take cover behind the MSM and the Axelrod illusion that Obama is now campaigning for the GE. Pitiful last gasp attempt to sway the process in Obama’s favor. And it will fail because we will make sure it fails. Victory is well within reach if we work our asses off.
Dean SHOULD have wet pants, and he brought it on himself.
Agree….Dean is a Putz…..HOWL…..
Hillary’s popular vote versus Obama’s self-coronation based on the delegate count was the focus of the local radio jocks who are Republican/Independent. They were absolutely hooting over the “stupidity” of the Democrats.
One said, “This is why it’s OK to let Democrats do menial stuff and, you know, balance off Republicans a bit. But lord, don’t put them in charge. They turn everything into some complicated system that guarantees it work work.” LOL*
True, true, I thought.
We’re going to get so thrashed. They are just hooting and hollaring at how stupid it is that Hillary isn’t the nominee.
Speaking of Dem incompetence: Did you see how they screwed up the “veto-proof” Farm Bill? Big time. Democrats in Power: SNAFU.
That’s why they (DC Dems) don’t like the Clintons… they took responsibility for governing, and got things done. They spoiled the game.
yup….but then when you have professionals sending out text message to Dems calling Hillary supporters “vile,” can there be any doubt of the sheer incompetency?
Generation Survivor
I’m liking the smell of gridlock a little more each day.
indeed. given the incompetence and lack of integrity of our senators and representatives, it may be better for them to not have control of the wh too (and we all know that if obambi is elected, they’ll control the wh - puppet that he is).
I am just so taken aback from the information you have made evident. I have known it all along but the way you stated it completely captures exactly what is wrong about Obama’s wins and how they certainly do not represent the will of the people. It is SO obvious that it will probably escape notice of the mainstream media.
Thank you for an excellent examination of this nightmare. Super work on your part. WOWZERS!
I don’t see this argument used anywhere: all Obama’s delegate advantage comes from February contests (mostly caucuses).
Since March 1, for over three months, Hillary has been winning more contests, more popular votes, and more pledged delegates than Obama:
Out of 13 contests, Hillary won 7 (it’s 7 and 7 equal if Texas caucus is counted as a separate contest)
Popular votes: Hillary - 6,563,000
Obama - 6,073,000
Hillary netted almost half a million (490,000) votes more than Obama (that’s over 8 percent margin)
Pledged delegates: Hillary - 458
Obama - 437
(This is with Oregon delegates broken 32/20 in Obama’s favor)
Hillary has won the most populous states and the swing states since March 1. This trend is going to continue in Hillary’s favor throughout the rest of the primaries.
The only thing that Obama manage