WTH, DNC?
By LisaB on June 8, 2008 at 10:15 PM in Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Black nationalism, Chicago politics, Current Affairs, DNC, Democratic National Convention, Democrats, Electability
I’ve asked myself time and again what the “party elders” are thinking. Apparently it’s beyond me because I can’t figure it out. I don’t go in for conspiracy theories, and I think we have to look at how people really operate. I tend to think decisions at this level are pragmatic in the extreme according to individual self-interest as expressed through Democratic party policy.
Right now I have 2 working theories: Self-Interest and Weak Executive.
Read the rest ->
Self-Interest
In this theory, I think everyone knows about Rezko and how much damage that means for Obama. While the success of his campaign was something of a surprise, I think the DNC is quite willing to “run with it,” scooping up new money, new voters and the gloss from having a “breakthrough” candidate. They know he is likely to implode but they are willing to ride it out and then profess shock, surprise, and, probably, sadness. Look for the DNC to push a suitable party elder for VP.
In this scenario, I think HRC knows exactly what is going on but opposes the DNC plan for her own reasons. She may not like the idea of waiting for something to simply happen or may think it will come back to haunt her if she benefits under those circumstances. Being a stalwart party member, she may simply not want to nominate someone who is likely to have a real scandal soon.
But why would Obama run for the Presidency if he is likely to be caught up in Rezko or even just grazed by it? He wasn’t going to run this year, and the Chicago machine intended Governor Blagojevich to run. Blagojevich apparently changed his mind, but what made Obama change his? What happens to Blagojevich’s campaign war chest (liberally pumped up by friends of Rezko)? And if Obama gets swept up in any of the Rezko indictments, could he use any left-over campaign funds for his defense? I understand there is some provision for just such a thing in campaign finance law but do not know if it would apply.
Weak Executive
In this scenario, the DNC got exactly the candidate they wanted and probably hope or are fairly sure Rezko will not be an issue. Perhaps the party would like a weak executive so a likely Democratic-led Congress can exert itself. Not really a conspiracy theory, but a political choice in terms of how power is allocated in Washington. After having a Republican unitary executive, Democratic leaders may be trying for a weaker executive, albeit a Democratic one. Of course, they may LIKE the unitary executive, as long as he owes them.
In this sense, HRC would not be a good choice, since she is considered more of a power, and her experience here, in particular, is unattractive to party elders. Since Bill Clinton often did not “play ball” with Democrats (earning him some serious grudges), party elders may feel HRC would do the same. They are probably right in this.
————————————
Here are some basic facts to work with:
1) Rezko and its potentialities are well known by all parties - the DNC, Obama, Clinton and anyone else who can read, since it is public knowledge. Under-reported because of its complexities, this federal investigation lays bare some of the Chicago politics that Obama came up in and benefitted from. It’s not pretty.
Although all details about Rezko are not known, and it’s a VERY tangled web, enough was known early on to indicate Obama at least has some very shady friends and potential terrorist connections at worst. I think all parties took Rezko into account in decision-making, but in what sense?
2) The DNC was trying to push out HRC as soon as possible. Despite all precedent and the close nature of the primary, party elders wanted Hillary to shut down sooner rather than later. Why? Why does this make sense?
3) The DNC was completely intransigent about FL and MI. Why? Rulz notwithstanding, the DNC went out of its way to antagonize the voters in two typically important swing states. Why? Surely something better could have been worked out than the half-assed decision they came to in the RBC. I think the DNC got what it wanted though.
4) Party elders and many superdelegates got on board with Obama earlier rather than later, despite long-standing ties to the Clintons and their history of service to the party. Again, why?
5) Why would a party completely throw under the bus its only successful president, since FDR, in Bill Clinton? How does this make sense?
6) Lastly, Obama has a lot of unusual negatives such as his 20 year association with a church espousing Black Liberation Theology, connections to the Nation of Islam, thin resume, attitudes toward whites as reflected in his autobiography and Michelle’s public comments. Gary Hart was “done in” by a picture, Howard Dean by a scream and George Allen by to “macaca.”
Opportunistic Factors
I do not think several aspects of this race played into the decision-making. This is not to say an opportunistic factor won’t have a serious impact on the outcome. I just don’t think these things were “knowable” beforehand and were not planned for or against.
Misogyny - Although I believe misogyny was present and may have been used as a strategy, I don’t really think it was the reason for any decisions. In other words, I don’t think “woman-hate” is why the DNC pushed HRC out although I do think it was a successful tool.
Pastors - Although explosive, I think the “pastor problems” Obama has had are also simply things that happen in campaigns. I don’t see how it figures into any calculus regarding why Obama was annointed.
Obamessiah - I think, although some people expected Obama to be an attractive candidate, the level of his success and the manner of it is still a surprise. This could not be planned for and might turn out to be a negative.
Split in the Party - I don’t think party elders saw the possibility of the Democratic party splitting along the neo-liberal and New-Deal (thanks, Medusa!) line very likely, if it occurred to them at all. It could now be a real problem.
Race - I doubt party elders expected race to play the kind of role it has so far. However, it should be noted that Obama’s early constituency was largely white, with many AAs warming up to him as the campaign went along. Also, as some have noted, Obama seems to be distancing himself, ever so slowly, from his AA community roots as he looks to gain ever wider support.
—————————————————–
So, what can you add? Do you have information on any of these areas? Is there something missing you can add? What ‘cha got?
My guess would be that the DNC wanted a weask president (Obama, definitely not Clinton) who the party could control, using bush’s “Unitary executive” to railroad through into law bills that would benefit the party in general and the party’s contributors in particular. The welfare of the voters was, as usual, not considered. They hoped that the Obama personality cult would sweep away those minor complications (stolen caucuses, terrorist associates, racist spiritual advisers, no actual experience, and the like).
You know I’d go along with the weak President angle which had not occurred to me but I have to say that they have totally misjudged this IMO because they do not understand that someone like Obama is capable of turning on anyone and anything to get what he wants. I still tend to think he is run by something (Chicago) that is not as clear as we’d all want but he will work out from under the “party elders” in a hot NY minute. You simply cannot play with a totally corrupt person and not expect to get badly hurt. The theory that he crashes and they get to have both of them has merits but if he slips through then they are absolutely toast in my opinion and Bush has laid the groundwork for an insanely authoritarian president that O can snatch right up and have the DNC and others for breakfast. His arrogance and power-hunger will certainly be miscalcuated, as will Michelle’s. This does not seem like a safe approach to me but then, hell, most of the DNC is as arrogant or more so than Obama. Sigh. It is ugly. But you bring up very interesting points. Thanks.
I would agree with you that what the DNC wants is a weak president, but what they will get with Obama may well be something else entirely. Another possibility being that Obama’s Svengali will not be the DNC, but rather Wright, Pfleger, and Ayres.
I agree with this. Obama is arrogant a la Bush, and very capable of getting into office and like Bush, blowing everyone off. That would include the DNC, and resulting in a destruction of this country. He’d insist on focusing on African nations, as some of his legislation in the Senate shows, taking the focus off the Middle East. Since he is in that mold of “blame America first” all kinds of issues could arrive where he makes decisions that ultimately undermine the country economically and militarily. I don’t think party elders or the DNC will control him like they think.
Look at his legislative record in the Senate, with a surprising number of Africa-focused bills that reminds me of his church’s philosophy.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?tab=votes&id=400629
Sorry. “Weak”, not “weask”.
BO is a puppet alright: question is who owns him really?
Tony Rezko did own him. He is a free agent now.
Okay, then, and Rezco is part of Chicago mob.
Barry’s been acting more and more like a mobster. Starting with thuglike behavior at caucuses, his actions with Lieberman, his supporters, and now his control of DNC. Still not clear is media - I think it’s his connection with big business. He’ll keep status quo, not cost business money.
They hate Clintons because they can’t control them.
I think Obama starts by promising everything - buys and bribes people. But I think that is changing as he has more power. Now he’s controlling by threats. That’s what with Hillary. Threats of destroying career, reputation, who knows what else. I think he’s a baaad guy.
Fact #1: Obama was a bought and paid for toy of Rezko. Nobody is saying it but that was the Rezko plan. If Obama makes it to the White House expect him to pardon Rezko….his maker. They did not ever write a story from this angle. But Rezko loaded up hospital boards and bought huge swaths of political power in Illinois…how nobody put two and two together I still do not know. But this is a story for Larry should he chose to write it.
Fact #2: I cannot for the life of me figure out why they felt that they had to treat Hillary the way they did. I think that in the end she just gave in and gave them what they wanted to get them off of her back. The real truth will be in how strongly she campaigns for Obama. If she does not come out on all eight cylinders she has had it with them.
Fact #3: I still cannot figure out the rules committee and why they had to cheat Hillary out of the four delegates in Michigan….if I got that right. Why did they do that they knew that if Obama had sch a lead he didn’t need the four delegates yet they risked the bad blood. What fools.
Fact #5: That is a brilliant question.
Fact #6: Given Allen’s macaca I can’t see how in the heck they feel that Obama can win? I am not going to vote for him. I am going to vote for McCain now.
Facts 2 and 3 are much the same. The answer may be that the one thing that the DNC had to avoid at all costs was Clinton winning the Primaries. Whatever it takes. If so, remember the old saying: “Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.”
As I said over on Confluence……Obama is definitely pro-choice, ’cause he had the DNC do a “d and c” on our rights!!
I’ll never reward this behavior with my sacred vote. Ever!
Larry…I just can’t fathom it either. It just makes no sense.
I’ll have to think about this one…
Sorry…should have written Lisa, not Larry. My mistake.
I’ve wondered in my darker moments whether THEY decided it was good for the DNC to be seen OBVIOUSLY endorsing BO, and good for them to be seen OBVIOUSLY dismissing HRC; then when (if?) things implode for BO, the DNC has to turn to HRC. It allows the DNC to have it’s cake (kudos for supporting the first viable AA candidate, not being seen as the ones who “took it away from him”) and eat it too — they still wind up with HRC running! They may have miscalculated on the strength of HRC’s voters, but see it all comes out o.k. in the end because AA’s will not be angry at the DNC and punish them…
I don’t know…this gives the DNC an awful lot of credit for smarts that I’m not really sure they have. I think they are just so enamored of the 1st AA candidate, that they simply refuse to see any of his many, many flaws.
The easiest person to bamboozle is the one who thinks that he (or she) is smart.
and all that $$$…Talk about the ultimate in what can be thrown under a bus!
I’ve considered that possibility as well.
I agree that Obama is a stealth candidate that we don’t know. This is reminiscent of the George bush that most people did not take the time or initiative to know. I studied him and worked against him. People were caught up in the moment. They are again.
Is anyone planning on protesting outside the Democratic Convention? I have the month of August off and would like to organize something.
SB Iowa, I live in Denver, tell me more? Maybe we can work together. Contact me at hillaryvp2008@yahoo.com
Be careful in Denver in August.
There are other events not so “calm” getting organized.
check out recreate68.com
Obama keeps secrets (Rev Wright, Michelle’s comments, etc) He is never called on them by the MSM so he moves forward until the RNC catches up with him and DEMS lose again. The fact that Joe Lieberman mentored him and promoted him, then stabbed him in the back should be investigated. This was not a coincidence.
I am probably too shell shocked at this minute to fully analyze this situation. I believe fully that the DNC decided very early that they wanted Obama to be the nominee. That enabled them to ignore the blatant sexism both from other candidates (including Obama) and the MSM . This should have let the rest of us know right away that the DNC was only going along with the race because they had to. The fix was in from the start. And it essentially comes down to the notion that the DNC wanted to have a black candidate. Nothing else makes any sense. They don’t even care that their black candidate has deep ties to people that hate our country. That is how blind and out of touch the DNC has become. And why I cannot support them.
I agree with you Pagan. I think the fix was in from the beginning. When did the DNC change things so voters in urban areas would get more delegates than the same number of voters in rural areas? When they did this, they paved the way to make it easier for the candidate who gets the urban areas (the AAs votes) to win the nomination.
nope, nope, nope, a little community of certain politicians who are members of called the DSA or Democratic Socialists of America that include Dean and a bunch of others. Obama is a lot deeper than DSA, but is the closest the Democratic leader has.
The hopes obviously were that the Rezko thing wouldn’t rear its ugly head causing people to investigate Obama a lot closer, but that didn’t work out!
Remember Rezko wanted to start his trial immediately and his lawyers went against his wishes to postpone it for a few weeks?
Did you ever consider the idea that they may agree with his many supporters or the idea that Obama may be the better canidate.
not possible when you look at the polls - and did you see the EXCELLENT Neil DeGrasse Tyson piece in the NYT Friday about the mathematical modeling of poll data? concluding the HRC IS stronger against McCain. Or the WSJ piece by Juan Williams? Or the New York magazine piece wondering whether”he can?”
Well no on both your counts, but should Obama be the DNP candidate for POTUS on Sept 1st, we learned by his examples of uniting and will follow his example during the Primary seaspn and become GOP’s for a day on Nov 4th!
Great learning from Obama huh?
Yes, republican for a day is the idea that many angry democrat should/could support. Set up a website saying this movement is dedicated to the Obama campaign for their “inspiration”.
I have a copy of Obama’s former employer and friend Billy Ayers’ book Fugitive Days on my side table. Ayers thinks Kathy Boudin was a great fighter for justice. (p. 295)
Highlights of Kathy Boudin’s resume:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Boudin
Way to go Obama!
What Ayers could do with a bomb, he will try to do with Obama. Bring down the American government. The DNC opened Pandora’s Box when then picked Obama to be their nominee.
I’m starting a grass roots movement. I am going to start doing ACTION MEMOS. THIS IS MY PLEDGE:
First, I will do the ACTION
THEN, I WILL get FIVE other PEOPLE to do it
THEN I will post that same information to FIVE WEBSITES of HILLARY SUPPORTERS asking them for the same commitment
THIS IS MY FIRST ACTION MEMO:
please JOIN Me
ACTION MEMO 1:
Brazile: I’ll Quit DNC Position over Super Delegates
Here’s an important link:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18882087
It will show you exactly what Donna Brazile said back a few months ago. You can also listen. She said she would quit the DNC IF super delegates wound up choosing the nominee for the general election. Well, Miss Donna, it has happened. Super Delegates HAVE selected the nominee. He was not elected, he was selected. Now is the time for you to resign.
Let’s all write Donna and remind her of her pledge. After all, I’m down here in Louisiana too, and my mama said you’re only as a good as your word. I’m sure Donna’s mama taught her that too.
Donna Brazile or Brazile and Associates
info@brazileassociates.com
or P.O. Box 15369, Washington, DC 20003.
Let the GRASS ROOTS GAMES BEGIN …
http://dakiniland.wordpress.com/2008/06/07/action-memo-remind-brazil-its-time-to-quit-the-dnc/
Excellent idea!
According to Newton’s Law of Gravity, what goes up must come down.
Well! Hillary has just converted her potential energy into latent energy.
This construes that Hillary latent energy is there and can be converted into potential energy instantly at the tip of a finger.
If this presidential nominee election has violated the rules and bylaws of the Constitution of the Democratic Party, this election must be declared null and void or Obama must be disqualified and Hillary must be reinstated as the Democratic presumptive nominee.
Otherwise Obama and his sycophants can expect civil disobedience from the voters- bosses.
I really think there is an element of fear on the Dems party. Fear that they don’t have what it takes to meet the problems the nation faces and give a good account of themselves.
After all what have they actually done in the last twenty years.
Zip, is what.
I’m positiive that plays a role. Watch the few Youtubes we have of our leaders. Contrast the last one with Conyers and EmptyWheel done recently. She goes all girly on the old fart and he opens up a little. Several months ago when Matt Stoller interviewed him you got the cornered rat response.
Conyers got angry and defensive.
They are scared and truly don’t know what to do.
Larry,
I think it would be worthwhile to check out this link to an article regarding the bi-partisan meeting at the Univ. of Oklahoma on Jan. 7, 2008 involving NYC mayor, Bloomberg and former senators David Boren, Sam Nunn, Chuck Hagel and others.
http://www.new-federalist.com/other/2008/3503bloomberg_okla.html
The article is from Lyndon LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review and some may question it’s credibility based on the controversial LaRouche. Nevertheless, the meeting did take place and ever since I first read about this meeting, it rang a lot bells and raised a number of red flags with me as to whether there was more to this meeting than what was disclosed to the media that this was just about bringing bipartisanship back into our government. After all, the meeting was secret and not open to the public and I agree with the author of the article that …”the 17 establishment figures attending did not come to an out-of-the-way college town just to deliver a freshman civics lecture.”
I believe this meeting may be another piece of the puzzle, which, in time, will further explain what’s really going on behind the scenes. It certainly appears to be a major power struggle going on between two opposing power elite factions and Bloomberg plays a role in one of them.
I think it’s definitely worth looking into and, at the least, keeping an eye on, because, as you say, there are a lot of things that have transpired in this primary involving the absolute need to get Hillary out of the race quickly that just doesn’t make sense. I also believe that obama is being used by these powerful forces in order to keep Hillary out of the WH, no matter what. Whether they intend for him to occupy the WH remains to be seen.
For whatever reason, I have a gut feeling that we are being purposely distracted from what’s really about to come down, for the purpose of catching us off guard and unprepared rendering us incapable of responding quickly and effectively to avert what I consider to be the “real coup”.
Great post. I think it is possible that ALL the factors above are at play. And we should not be so quick to dismiss the word “conspiracy”. All campaigns are a conspiracy of sorts. A perfect storm happened here to help Obama.
1. sexism: not overt. unconscious. The idea that a male person who is strong AND ambitious is a leader - whereas the same qualities in a woman are suspect and means she is “controlling” is a cultural bias that is much deeper than I thought. Did the DNC and the media sit down and say “let’s attack the woman?” no of course not. But it was there.
2. Obama ran a nasty (and effective) campaign. And the media was too timid to call him on it. Attacking a Clinton is their sport of choice, though. The imbalance was severe.
3. The super delegates behavior is the most illogical. The only logic must be money. I am sure cash and other promises motivated them in large measure. Their voters did not matter to them.
4. As for Rezko - the DNC may know what’s coming - but denial is an amazing thing. Obama evokes a version of mass denial. In many ways he implores people to disregard reality. This worked on the DNC. (brazile excepted. she has no denial. She just wants clinton gone. )
Obama is the perfect tool to rid the party of the clintons - they think. It won’t work. Obama will fail either before the election or as President and do real damage to the party.
This campaign has served Clinton in some ways. She gone from being a smart Senator with negatives -to being a fierce fighter with a steel gut in the eyes of many. Her future is bright.
I don’t buy the weak executive theory. Dean is not deep enough to think this through.
About your basic points - I’m confused by #2 and #4. Maybe I’m just ill-informed, but I believed that Clinton was originally expected to win heavily, and I definitely recall that Obama’s superdelegate lead didn’t develop until well after Super Tuesday.
Your point about the Clintons and their service to the party, and the phrase ‘throw HRC under a bus’, both sound frankly entitled to me. If Clinton had won the close race, would we have said that Obama had been thrown under a bus? And while the Clintons have both accomplished praiseworthy things, that does not entitle them to hold office and it does not remove the things they’ve done that Obama’s supporters think are not praiseworthy.
your word “entitlment” betrays you as an obama supporter. The only person who feels entitled is obama. I’m not engaging you, just telling you no, no and no. Nobama ‘08.
No, only if Hillary had won by stealing delegates. Then I’d agree that it wasn’t fair to Obama.
You Obamanics keep saying Hillary and using the word “entitlement” Is that not the same as with Michelle and Barack? Do they not use the words “this is our time?” They feel as a black man, he is entitled to the presidency because there has been no black president. Give Hillary a break. I hope she does not turn up at the Convention. And I also wholeheartely would like a campaign agains Kerry, Pelosi, Richardson, Hagel, Dashel, Mcalskie(sp?) or who ever who turned on Hillary. I want them to all lose their seats.
Please include Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona.
Not only is she female, but her constituents voted hands down for Sen. Clinton in the primary in Arizona. She gave Obama the thumbs up right after the primary vote in Arizona.
It’s all about job security for the DNC…
They new he’d be a looser and figured so many dems would go for McCain but vote down ticket Dem to safe guard the House and Senate, and with McCain in the White house, the dems would come out strong two years from now for the interim election and keep them all in their jobs again, unlike during Bills Presidency, when he lost the house and Senate to the Repubs.
Besides, most of them do better financially under Repub taxes, as well.
Next we`ll hear from someone who DOES “believe in conspiracy theories.”
Political campaigns ARE conspiracy — people plotting and scheming to gain power.
I’ve read other blogs from you on other sites. You are not needed here. Go away. That’s my conspiracy theory in a nutshell.
How about this theory:
The DNC might have been brainwashed by the Obama camp and his supporters, They might have whispered to the ear of H.Dean and the elders of the DNC; “HRC got too much garbage! If the Repubs will attack Hillary and connect her to all incumbents and new comers, we might lose current seats in the House and Senate! and you’re going to lose your power.”
And of course the BO camp and his supporters (especially, rich ones and others those who think themselves smart, but unwise) want to control and to gain the power in the government. Maybe all children and grandchildren of the elders of the DNC who are the BO’s supporters and the current young college supporters would be OB’s new soldiers who could be first to be sent to Kenya for training as BO’s brand new army. It’s just a theory; hopefully.
The people who run this site are nuts! Larry Johnson and Susan really need some medical help. You two are delusional beyond belief. And all you crazy morons who continue to post here are feeding a beast, an ugly beast compromised of Larry Johnson and Susan. Two American haters. You people need to go to the bathroom and wash yourself clean, you scums are stained with dirt! OBAMA 08!!!
Project much?
You can do better than the America Hater thing.
You don’t really need to hear the litany of proof of the Obama’s famous anti-American value system, do you?
I mean if he just came right out and said it, would you get it then? Likely, and sadly not, the KoolAid is just to powerful.
Obama troll swarm: Hillary the President & Lumi.
They work in swarms.
Why are you even here? You are definitely out of your mind posting here. Go over to Digg where the Obama fans hang out and bash Hillary…..get lost!
Obama is a lightwalker! or whatever.
wow Lumi ….. you are enlightened and I bow to you.
Hillary or McCain will be the next president.
Find another site …. LArry and Susan are right on the money
Lumi, Lume, lunu, what ever your name is. Are we the scary ones. You’re the one folling someone you have no clue about. Call me crazy but at least I know if I glanced in the closet, I can stomach what I see. You accuse us of feeding a beast? Have you not fed your own that is sitting and ready to consume all that has been built in the country for centuries. go suck and egg.
Thanks for the memories, Lumi!
Wow, Lumi. That was so eloquent; So prolific; so….so…well, just so darned well written! Seriously, I think you have been called to write. Perhaps you should consider taking that Creative Writing class next fall, if you aren’t carrying too many credits already. Just an idea, because, Dude. I mean, really. Goosebumps.
It’s so weird that we “need to go to the bathroom” and wash ourselves clean. The language is strange. A guess would be some kind of fixation on bodily release and hygiene or cleanliness.
Lumi, John Doh and Drkate need to go. I have seen other posts from them elsewhere. Not good people.
You know, something just occurred to me, that I think in our understandable outrage I’m not sure if it has occurred to others yet. Obama claims he never heard any of the hate filled rhetoric when he was at TUCC. Has anyone ever seen a “service” from TUCC that didn’t have anti-white anti-American rants in it? If all the services have the same crap, that really throws his unbelievable claim out the window tied to a ton of bricks. I think it would be a worthy effort to investigate if someone can get their hands on some of their taped services from over the years.
As far as why would Obama run when he knew Rezko was going to go on trial and probably be found guilty, thats very easy actually and has been exposed during the investigations. The Chicago combine was hoping to have Fitzgerald removed from the case and replaced by someone they could control. Now that the plan has failed, he no choice but to try to deny and distract and hope he gets into office so he and his DNC elitist supporters can end the investigation before he is indicted.
The DNC morons Pelosi, Dean, etc etc may also know but hope his candidacy will bring in new donors, new voters and more Democrats into the House and Senate to give them an actual Majority rather than a 1 member edge. If Barack makes it to the convention before he is exposed I fully expect the DNC’s possible plan to backfire horrendously. If you’ll notice, Fox News has been the only ones being fair to Hillary most of the time, so they could easily paint her as a Martyr for the Democratic party, exposing all the dirty tricks the DNC used to shut her out and have Republicans ready to take the districts of Dean, Pelosi, Reid, etc. Having watched how the Republicans campaign the last 15 years, I have no doubt they are capable of just such a plan especially with Rove at the wheel. Sadly, that may be just what is necessary to bring the Democratic party back to the Democrats instead of the lunatic fringe.
Those you see following the Obamessiah are not Democrats, though the species may try to look similar. They are in fact nothing but JACKASSES!
P.U.M.A.
How is, it according to testimony, Atta stated Rezko told him not to worry about Fitzgerald? That he would be taken care of?
Who would have told Rezko that would happen?
Removal of a federal prosecuter like Fitzgerald might have fit in with the Karl Rove’s US attorney scandal, BUT…It was noted during Senate testimoney that Fitzgerald was considered for removal but it was decided not to “remove” him because it would not pass an obstruction of justice smell test.
Considering Fitzgearld was working on both the Chicago Combine case at the time he was sent to investigate Valerie Wilson and he was not happy about being “retasked”, it quite possible that Rebublicans AND Democrats had an interest in get him out of Chicago.
I beleive it was to pull him off the Combine case and that he would not get far in Valerie Wilson’s case due to executive privlege. Thus his comment of “sand in the face”, buying time to deep six Obama’s past paper trail.
Auchi shows up in 2004 and Obama meets with him at the Hotel and gives a toast to him at Rezko’s house. What happened in 2005 - 2006? Axelrod consults with Exelon; Power stations in Iraq. Obama takes inquiries for getting the “power plant” guy out of a Green zone brig with an assist by Blackwater. Blackwater had set up shop in Illinois in 2003. The Govenor AND Obama are closely tied to what ever went on with Auchi, Rezko, Blackwater and Exelon. Arms to Africa? Money transfers?
What I am trying to figure is was it possible to have a Democratic Govenor have a Rebulican appointed Us Attorney removed? What role did Obama have in any of this? Will the depositions taken by Fitzgerald’s office of BO’s and MO’s participation in the Board Games be leaked? Those depositions are most definately FUBAR by now.
Some good questions there TeakWoodKite.
There are plenty of Republicans involved in the Chicago combine, not to mention Obama is Dick Cheney’s cousin. So it wouldn’t really surprise me if thats what they had hoped for. The last Gov of Illinois is already in prison, and Blagojevich is almost certainly headed there as well. Obama’s future looks bright..as bright as neon orange prison overalls at least.
Those you see following the Obamessiah are not Democrats, though the species may try to look similar. They are in fact nothing but JACKASSES!
P.U.M.A.
Generally, in Chicago, party affiliation did not matter much - what mattered was whether you were part of the “combine.” Those who were got $.
Also, I’ve wondered if the attempt to remove Rezko was tied in at all to the USDA scandal that Gonzales didn’t “recall.” Maybe Rezko thought they could get him out though that. After all, Fitzgerald DID get Scooter, so maybe some aspect of that was payback. . .
I don’t understand the “weak executive” gambit. In previous posts at this site, others have mentioned that Obama will now dictate to the DNC, or that Obama is as interested in an “imperial presidency” as Dubya. That sounds anything but weak.
Now, the theory is that the DNC may have gone for a “weak executive” so Congress can assert itself?
The number of “theories” as to Obama’s victory and the DNC’s reasoning (stupid as it was) is almost too much to handle.
I am deeply disappointed that the Democratic Party leadership may have “arranged” an Obama victory. But I also believe that McCain is a disaster waiting to happen and that staying home on the first Tuesday in November would be a vote for McCain.
Unless/until we learn more negatives about Obama, I am “stuck” with him. Do not like it one bit, but McCain is unacceptable. If additional, credible information comes out about Obama that shows him as unelectiable, I will certainly consider a different course of action.
I still believe that Hillary was the better candidate.
I was not so much claiming that Obama would be a weak executive, but rather the DNC thought he would be a weak executive. Too bad Obama has other ideas. And now that Obama is running on the “Racism” ticket, if the DNC backs away from him the entire Democratic party gets smeared as racist.
jwjr -
Got it. This is an exploration rather than an explanation. The DNC may be undone by its own “creation” then. That would be poetic justice.
You need more negatives? Why the trio Jeremiah Wright, Pfleger and Meeks of Obama’s spiritual advisors for life are not enough?
Is a man that chose them and live by their teachings for 20 years acceptable to you? Is their bigotry okay with you? Do you think that “leaving teh church for teh good of the church” for political expediency can change 20 years in BO ’s life? He is in his 40’s : that was all of his adult life.
Wow….
Obama_Is_Weak:
I don’t support the disgusting bigotry and anti-Hillary smears of Wright and Pfleger. I find Pfleger particularly offensive. Don’t know enough about Meeks to respond honestly.
However, four more years of Bush (via McCain) is worse than some ranting preachers and Obama’s membership in a church. (McCain has some nutball preachers in his background too.) Think of more Alitos and Scalias on the SCOTUS. That would affect us for generations — and our weak Senate would not stop it, based on past behavior. They need a Dem in the White House to put forward wothwhile nominees.
Think about continued occupation of Iraq under McCain and its costs in precious lives, and tax dollars. Again, Congress might oppose McCain and refuse to fund the war, but the Democratic majority hasn’t shown any backbone on this issue either. Under a Democratic president, they might find a spine — and Obama is the only Dem unless some revelations come out between now and the convention.
At least Obama claims to support much of what I support (e.g., reproducive rights, ending the Iraq occupation), and what Senator Clinton supports. McCain does not.
As I said, if more credible evidence comes out (e.g., a valid Michelle Obama tape, proven “take” from Rezco), I’ll reconsider.
Like Hillary, I plan to keep my options open.
That’s fair, Cath. We each have to find our solution.
It’s between a rock and a hard spot, and I don’t think there’s a sure-fire winner answer here.
Hillary was the winner. Alas!
The notion that only a Democratic president will put forth worthy SCOTUS nominees is not supported by historical evidence. Learn who it was who recommended Warren, Burger, Marshall, and Stevens. Recall that other nominees put forth by presidents have not automatically been approved by the Senate, e.g., Bork. Who gets on the Supreme Court depends upon the President AND the Senate. Also, if you review the record of the “strict-constructionist” Burger’s tenure as Chief Justice, more than one landmark, progressive, ruling came during this period. The nominees must be considered as individuals, and whether or not they have demonstrated integrity, critical thinking, and compassion during their careers prior to nomination.
We are examining different theories here, Cath. Got it? We have not committed to any one specific explanation for why the DNC is so in love with an unqualified, corrupt, race-baiting opportunist. We are still trying to figure it out.
One thing we have decided is we will not vote for Obama. As for me, Republican for a day looks like a plan. Also I actually think you are a troll.
Old accusation. False accusation.
What? I’m not allowed to question a myriad of theories? Or not allowed to question period? Sounds kind of like what has been done to Hillary’s supporters at Obama sites. Do not go that way.
I’m still here and am not a troll, a moron, or stupid — all of which have been directed at me at this site.
How paranoid can you get? It lowers credibility.
I agree that Sen. Clinton is the best choice, but McCain is so much better IMO than Obama. I live in Arizona and he has been my senator for years. He is a good leader and has experience. I can assure you he not going to overturn Roe v Wade (I say this with a heavy heart since I am pro-life). But for all you pro-choicers out there, he will not appoint judges who will overturn.
As far as the war in Iraq, I don’t think Obama is going to just bring the troops home within the first year of taking office. Hillary wouldn’t either.
I vote for McCain is a vote against Obama. I do NOT want Obama in the White House, nor his little wife, too.
we need Rezko trial summaries, daily diaries with links to the stuff that matters in the trial….Allison Davis, board appointments.
the Chicago sun Times and Tribune cover this, but it’s thicker than mud and not very visible.
http://www.thecapitolfaxblog has a few links but the father helm of that blog
has a Cadillac painted with Obama, (the Obamallac I kid you not) so
he cannot be trusted to pursue the truth.
there are nuggets in that trial. Evelyn Pringle has many of them but her work is too long.
There is an “appeasement factor” at work to some degree, in my opinion:
A Party Held HOSTAGE: Michele Obama Wasn’t Alone in Her Hostility at the Rainbow/PUSH Conference in 2004–Protests Against Jesse Jackson, Threats Against Democrats/Kerry By Ministers in an Eerie Preview of the Rev. Wright Episode
http://tinyurl.com/4jealx
On Boren and company–heavily researched series:
Nunn-Boren “Unity” Rears its Ugly Head on Behalf of Obama-Part I: With an Introduction to David L. Boren
http://tinyurl.com/5vx9a9
Part II: Obama’s Adviser David L. Boren–How He Screwed Us Long-term in 1993 re: Energy and More
vhttp://tinyurl.com/4ytee2
(Almost singlehandedly responsible for ruining Clinton-Gore’s energy plan)
Part III: Obama Adviser David L. Boren re: Foreign (inc. Energy) Policy
http://tinyurl.com/46c9ra
Gloria,
The links you supplied are significant indicators of exactly what is happening “behind the scenes”, with the Bloomberg, Boren, Nunn, et al. meeting in Norman, OK. I urge everyone to read them. It’s time to start thinking “outside the box”. The obama candidacy is much, much deeper and cynister than the DNC’s hatred for the Clintons or stupidity. That theory, IMO, is just a distraction from the real reason for his candidacy.
I totally agree with the analysis that this “unity” meeting is not about bipartisanship, but a unifying of the power elite to put the final nail in the coffin of democracy and move toward a “new world order” through corporate control of the government and, of course, “we, the people.”
Which also explains why Obama has been so well protected by the corporate media. He is the front man for the final act of the power elite’s plan.
The one thing they didn’t factor into the equation that threw a monkey wrench into the works was that Hillary would “stay in the race as long as she did.” They fully expected her to quit much sooner, which explains