The suit filed by Mr. McCain’s campaign against elections officials states Mr. McCain could lose votes from military members overseas who support the Vietnam War hero.

“There are many military service members and overseas voters who support Senator John McCain for president in the upcoming election and whose right to vote will be denied without relief from this court,” stated the complaint, also filed in U.S. District Court in Richmond.

The complaint states some Virginia localities did not send absentee ballots to overseas voters at least 45 days before the election, as recommended in 2004 by a congressionally created commission.

Wow. That is just a tad problematic, don’t you think? It is 2008 - surely 4 years is sufficient lead time to make sure that everything is squared away in order to fulfill this recommendation. Just sayin’.

This lawsuit was sparked by one case - see? Making your voice heard DOES matter! Hopefully, anyway. THe article continues:

The complaint cites the specific case of a Marine stationed in Iraq who did not receive his absentee ballot from Arlington County until Oct. 29. It asks that the court order absentee ballots for federal offices sent by Nov. 4 from qualified voters and received by Nov. 14 in the state to be counted.

“The McCain-Palin campaign believes without exception that the servicemen and women on the front line protecting our freedoms deserve every opportunity to make sure their vote counts,” McCain spokeswoman Gail Gitcho said.

It was not clear last night when the suit would be heard in court.

“Of course we want to make sure that all the absentee ballots that are coming in from overseas are counted,” Miss Skinner said. “We’ll comply with whatever order the judge gives on that.”

I dunno - I don’t think 10 days is all that long to wait, all things considered, do you? Whether one agrees with the Iraq War (I don’t), the reality is that these people are putting their lives on the line, their lives at home on hold, making sacrifices the enormity of which many of us cannot fathom, including, sadly, the ultimate sacrifice for some. I think the least we can do is allow them to VOTE. THis goes for ALL of our military serving abroad, whether it be Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Germany - wherever it is, our citizens deserve to execute their right in a democracy to cast their vote. Anything less is unacceptable, especially when they are in harm’s way. And especially when people like these two get to vote unimpeded:

Isn’t it weird seeing people go up and hug them? Like they are just anybody else in the neighborhood, not two unrepentant domestic terrorists who want to teach their children?? I wonder - was it from them that Obama learned to be a con man? Ahem.

So, yeah - I don’t think 10 days is too much to ask to allow late absentee ballots from our military, through no fault of their own, to come back in, do you?

Moreover, he made it clear that unlike some of his colleagues in the news business who claim they don’t vote anymore in order that they might stay neutral, he strongly disagreed and made clear that he full well intended to cast his ballot this Tuesday. Furthermore, in this season of the most biased election coverage ever, for any of these guys and gals to profess neutrality is like a horse tryng to profess it doesn’t like hay.

I’d like to thank our NoQ reader, Max, for bringing this video to our attention:

Bob Schieffer discussed the book, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” and that the Nazi’s came to power at the ballot box in an election. He said he certainly wouldn’t have wanted to stay neutral through that vote. He made it clear he felt we, as Americans, have to take a stand.

Mr. Schieffer also points out that you can keep your vote to yourself. Certainly a good idea this election season. He says, ‘tell everyone or no one.’

Over the years it is apparent that Mr. Schieffer certainly respects, and is a fan of John McCain. While Mr. Schieffer did stay neutral in all of his comments in this video as you can see yourself, it was very telling that he basically said the following:

You can vote against someone because you don’t like their attitude and you can vote for someone because you think they are more qualified.

Hmmm. “Attitude.” “Qualified.”

Now I can’t guarantee Mr. Schieffer was urging voters one way or the other, but considering the attributes of each candidate, it was telling that he used these particular words.

I certainly agree with Mr. Schieffer on not staying neutral even though my favorite candidate, Hillary Clinton is no longer in the race. I must step up to the plate and make the most responsible decision I can, electing the most qualified person. Someone with a record that backs up the rhetoric. Someone who offers policies that make sense for our country at this point in time and someone who respects all citizens, regardless of party. Bob Schieffer is right. Voting makes you feel big and strong.

Thanks, Mr. Schieffer. Now everybody — get to that ballot box!

::::::::

OPEN THREAD! CHAT ABOUT WHATEVER YOU WANT (as well as Ani’s fine points above!).

I’m 150% for voter enfranchisement. But, to state the obvious, it is incumbent on voters to make an effort to learn something about the candidate’s experience, qualifications, and policies.

These people were not tricked by clever questioning. The interviewer made an effort to be straightforward in how he posed the questions. So the Obama camp cannot complain about these interviews.

Here is the direct link to this video. It comes from Rootsarama’s YouTube channel. I haven’t had a chance to view more of his videos, but they seem worth a look. If any of you do check them out, please report what you found.

Peniel believes that Obama’s campaign is employing the same tactics they used in the primaries to overwhelm and dominate the caucus states and to intimidate and control how individual caucuses were conducted. Below is a quote from a Cleveland Plain Dealer news story that Peniel e-mailed to me:

From an A.P. story at the Cleveland paper on September 29, 2008:

A federal court has ruled that an Ohio county must allow same-day voting and registration

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — An Ohio county must allow new voters to register and cast an absentee ballot on the same day during a weeklong period that begins Tuesday, a federal judge ruled Monday.

U.S. District Judge James Gwin in Cleveland issued a temporary restraining order forcing Madison County to follow Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner’s instructions.

… Ohio law requires voters to be registered for at least 30 days before they cast an absentee ballot. Republicans have said Ohio law doesn’t allow same-day registration and voting, and have accused Brunner, a Democrat, of reading a partisan interpretation into law to benefit her own party.

The disputed voting window results from an overlap between Tuesday’s beginning of absentee voting 35 days before Election Day, and the Oct. 6 end of voter registration period.

Obama’s campaign has extensive plans to get college students around the state to register and vote during the window. Other groups, including the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, have plans to drive the homeless, low-income and minority voters to the polls during the window. …

I know the RNC and McCain’s campaign are aware of all of this, and trying to counter it. But what it will take, most of all, is volunteers who are willing to register pro-McCain/Palin voters.

Throngs of volunteers will also be needed to recruit and drive older and elderly disabled voters to the polls (or make sure they receive their absentee ballots).

Every effort imaginable will be needed to counter Obama’s initiatives to register college students and the homeless for same-day registration and voting.

STAY TUNED for more revealing stories on this key concern.

For Immediate Release
September 15, 2008

McCain-Palin 2008 Launches “Honest and Open Election Committee”

ARLINGTON, VA —

The McCain-Palin 2008 campaign today announced the formation of the Honest and Open Election Committee, with a mission to ensure that every qualified citizen has the opportunity to vote in a fair and transparent manner. The committee will work with state and local election officials to anticipate, and where possible resolve in advance, problems likely to arise on Election Day.

The advisory committee will be co-chaired by former United States Senators John C. Danforth and Warren B. Rudman. The committee also includes current and former members of Congress and former state secretaries of state, election officials, and state attorneys general, along with prominent academic experts in election law. The diverse composition of the committee reflects the McCain-Palin campaign’s desire to put partisan politics aside in the hope of seeing a fair and transparent election in November.

The committee will advise the campaign with respect to policy and actual or potential legal proceedings involving the campaign laws and practices in various states working towards avoiding litigation when possible.

This is one of the most important points made in the press release.

“The purpose of the Honest and Open Election Committee is to resolve potential voting problems in advance of Election Day to bolster voters’ confidence in the system,” said Rudman. “We believe that elections should be decided by voters, not lawyers.”

The Honest and Open Election Committee requested a dialogue between the McCain-Palin campaign and both the Democratic National Committee and the Obama-Biden campaign in letters sent today.

“We stand ready to work with you in a cooperative manner on issues that, if not handled properly, are likely to become adversarial,” the letter states. “Let’s show the American people that our two parties can together develop a transparent and open process in every voting place in the country. Experience has shown that careful, advance planning that anticipates and addresses problems and creates solutions can substantially reduce issues on Election Day.”

In light of evidence of voter fraud in Michigan, the following is very important; and I will not let my guard down for one minute because ACORN keeps rearing its “ugly head”.

In an effort to discuss these issues with the top election officials in each state, the McCain-Palin election committee sent those officials a letter offering assistance. The McCain-Palin election committee also launched a website at www.johnmccain.com/honest.

“Our committee will assist election officials across the country to make sure that federal and state voting regulations are understood and upheld. It is a reflection of the campaign’s commitment to tackling tough problems in a bi-partisan manner,” Danforth said.

Honest and Open Election Committee Members.

MEMBERS OF THE HONEST AND OPEN ELECTION COMMITTEE

John C. Danforth, Co-Chair–Former U.S. Senator; currently, Partner, Bryan Cave LLP; former Missouri Attorney General; former Ambassador to the United Nations

Warren B. Rudman, Co-Chair–Former U.S. Senator; currently, Co-Chairman, Stonebridge International LLC; Of Counsel, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP; Co-Chair, Concord Coalition; former New Hampshire Attorney General; former Chair, Senate Ethics Committee

John F. Bibby–Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Brigida Benitez–Partner, WilmerHale; Co-Chair, Leadership Council of the Hispanic Bar Association; Director, Women’s Bar Association; Past President, Hispanic Bar Association of the District of Columbia

Lovida H. Coleman, Jr.–Partner, Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP; former law clerk, Judge Wilfred Feinberg, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit; Election Observer in Pakistan, Haiti, and Chile; former Trustee, Rand Corporation

Tom Davis–U.S. House of Representatives; Ranking Member, House Government Reform and Oversight Committee; former Chairman, Board of Supervisors, Fairfax County

Rita DiMartino–Former Principal U.S. Delegate, Inter-American Commission of Women; National Commission on Electoral Reform; Board Chairman Emeritus, National Council of La Raza

Charles Fried–Professor of Law, Harvard Law School; former Solicitor General of the U.S.; former Associate Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Jack Goldsmith–Professor of Law, Harvard Law School; former Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice

Bill Jones–Board Chairman and Director, Pacific Ethanol, Inc.; former California Secretary of State; former California state legislator

Daniel Hays Lowenstein–Professor of Law, UCLA; founding Chair, California Fair Political Practices Commission; former Board Member, Common Cause; former redistricting counsel for California Democratic Congressional Delegation; author of first American textbook on election law; Co-Editor, Election Law Journal

Ronald D. Michaelson–Visiting Professor, University of Illinois at Springfield; Board Member, Illinois Campaign for Political Reform; former Executive Director, Illinois State Board of Elections; former Advisory Committee, Federal Election Commission; former Chair, Council on Governmental Ethics Laws

Susan Molinari–Senior Principal, Bracewell-Guiliani (effective October 6); Co-Chair, We Vote ‘08; former Member U.S. House of Representatives

Ralph Munro–Director, The Prepared Response Company; former Washington Secretary of State; Member, Carter Baker Commission on Election Reforms; former President, National Association of Secretaries of State

Sandra Schultz Newman–Shareholder and Chair, National Appellate Practice Group, Cozen O’Connor; former Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice; former judge on state Commonwealth Court; former Montgomery County (PA) Assistant District Attorney; Chairman, Fair Vote Committee in Pennsylvania

Robert Parker–Partner, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP

James Petro–Partner, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley; former Ohio Attorney General

Cameron P. Quinn–Adjunct Professor, George Mason School of Law; former Secretary, Virginia State Board of Elections

Daniel B. Rodriguez–Professor of Law, University of Texas Law School at Austin; former Dean, University of San Diego School of Law; former Professor, University of California, Boalt Hall School of Law

Larry D. Thompson–Senior Vice President of Government Affairs, General Counsel, and Secretary, PepsiCo, Inc.; former Deputy Attorney General; former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia; former Independent Counsel

Richard Williamson–Partner, Winston & Strawn; former Assistant Secretary of State; former Ambassador and Representative to the United Nations

For more information about the Honest and Open Election Committee, please send your request to honestelection@mccain08hq.com, or visit the Web site at www.johnmccain.com/honest.

Then there are his minions hacking pro-Hillary, or anti-Obama, or pro-McCain, or pro- THINKING sites over the weekend, taking them down. There is LEGAL evidence tracing ISP addresses back to HIS campaign. Now, tell me again how he is not like Bush?? “You’re either with me or agin me!” And NOW do you understand why he voted FOR FISA?? His claims of being a Constitutional Scholar ring false in the evidence of his clear and utter disregard of, and contempt FOR, the US Constitution. Wow - who needs protected speech? I guess WE don’t, especially if Obama gets in the White House, because we sure aren’t gonna have any! Good grief.

I got a comment today about how I HAVE to vote for Obama, or else risk having a THIRD Bush presidency. See, here’s the thing: the way Obama has changed his policies in just the past month, his platform is pretty much the same as McCain’s!!! Now, I have said a gazillion times (for those of you keeping score) that I have no plans to vote for McCain. Now. But really - if the SuperDelegates don’t wise up to this sanctimonious, duplicitous, back-stabbing, lying, cheating, arrogant, sexist, and pick the best candidate (that would be HRC) who knows WHAT I will do come November?

Especially when you consider the following story I saw today on AOL:

Hillary and The Other Woman By David Knowles (Aug 4th 2008 10:05AM).

Yes,that is really what he wrote as his title. Anyway, since many of you (wisely) do not have AOL, I will include the entire article here:

Hillary Clinton is a pioneer. The first credible female candidate for president of the United States, she came tantalizingly close to securing her party’s nomination, and will forever command the respect of millions of supporters across the country. For many of them, the prospect of Hillary being named vice president is tantamount to an insult — a hollow consolation prize, beneath the dignity of a rightful nominee. To others, the VP is the least that Barack Obama can do, especially if he wants to secure their allegiance in the fall.

That sentiment was expressed in a recent article at Politico:

Marcia Pappas, who heads the New York state chapter of the National Organization for Women, believes that Clinton supporters “would be outraged to know she was not given the right of first refusal.”

“She is the only woman in history who has ever garnered this much support,” Pappas continued. “She is the only woman in history who was able to raise the kind of money one would need to run a presidential campaign.”

Truly, hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. And while Pappas is right about the many achievements of Clinton’s historic campaign, the hope is that Hillary has not blazed a trail only for herself, but one for all women to walk. Put another way, because Hillary has represented the best chance so far to see a woman become commander-in-chief, has she opened a door for other women to walk through, or simply reserved her own place at the front of the line?

The “next time around” argument is always difficult to swallow, no matter the cause. That’s especially true for many Clinton supporters because of how close she came. And though close only really counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, there’s something of a perfect storm brewing in the minds of many women who sense that Obama is about add yet another man to what has become a familiar one-two punch (except for Geraldine Ferraro) of male tickets.

What, then, if Obama chose a woman, but one that wasn’t Hillary Clinton? It is no secret that the other woman in question is Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a short-list survivor. Would the addition of a non-Hillary female help take the edge off the “Dream Ticket” hangover? According to Slate’s Christopher Beam, the answer from Hillary Nation is no:

It’s easy to see the logic for tapping Sebelius. Hillary Clinton put 18 million cracks in the biggest glass ceiling, as she told us in her concession speech. Why should it matter which woman shatters it? If anything, picking a woman other than Clinton reinforces the point that any woman can make it to the top. But selecting Sebelius could backfire big time.

The biggest objection, as voiced by Pappas: Hillary has earned her place on the ticket. On the other hand, adding Sebelius, a most qualified candidate for the job, to the ticket does affirm one principle that Hillary made so glaringly obvious: that women are up to the task. While there is certainly a segment of the population that did not vote for Hillary because she is a woman (just as a small percentage won’t vote for Obama because he is black), there are also many voters who love the idea of women in the highest offices in our land, but who simply did not want that particular woman.

In the coming days, the suspense will be over. The ramifications of Obama’s choice, however, are sure to linger.

SEBELIUS???? And she is SO qualified HOW, exactly?? Maybe he didn’t see her response to The State of the Union this year. It was the most boring bland speech IO have ever seen, delivered in the most boring bland manner. If Obama does pick her, I can see why: she will not upstage him one little bit. But she is NOT on a par with Hillary Clinton in no way, shape, or form!!

Grrr. You know, I was thinking that since Obama has floated some Republicans’ names up for VP to try to get the crossover vote, maybe McCain should consider Hillary Clinton as his VP. He has already said he has great respect for her, and has TREATED her respectfully (not just WORDS!). She has proven she can work across party lines. She IS a hard worker. And, frankly, since McCain is pretty experienced himself, she would not be seen as his handmaiden, or as much of an insult to her. She would still have have the (D) after her name - though after the way the DNC has treated her, I so NOT know why, bunch of backstabbers - and she could run as the Democratic candidate in 2012. I dunno, just a thought that came to me yesterday. I haven’t thought through all of the ramifications yet, but what do y’all think?

What I DO know is that Obama will be horrible for this country should he get to the White House by hook and by crook. I do not think McCain will be all that much better in terms of policies, but he does not seem as nefarious as Obama and AxelRove. Scares the crap out of me…

So - now that Obama has shown even MORE of his underhanded, diabolical plans, surely, SURELY, there are some SDs out there who still have a backbone, and a love for DEMOCRACY?!?!?! Right??

First, they didn’t meet their lofty goals for June. Surprise!

And the DNC has been tanking financially since the last quarter of last year. Surprise!

Do you think they have guessed why? Could it be that all those “downscale” Clinton supporters did more for the DNC and its candidates than they care to admit? Regret. It’s what’s for dinner on Howard, Nancy and Donna’s plate. It’s just too bad they are only having “health food” at the convention. Otherwise, Let Them Eat Cake would apply here. But never mind. Like Donna said, they don’t need us. Right?

We promise to give you what you asked for, Donna–except for the part where you suggested we all “stay home” on election day. Sorry, we can’t help you there. We are all going to vote. Yes We Can! Seriously, if I were you DNC Stalinists, I would really start to worry that the DNC/RNC comparison chart below is a reflection of what November 4th’s voting tally will look like. You can bet that millions of us will do all we can to make your nightmare your reality.

Here, we see the Obama Camp and the DNC begging for pennies. I love poetic justice, don’t you? Check out the charts and make sure you aren’t drinking any liquids because you will mess up your screen from laughing. I know you are all crying the world’s smallest river and playing the world’s smallest violin for them.

Plouffe is right about one thing….”The calvary[sic,duh] doesn’t exist”. Well, not really. The Cavalry exists, it’s just not buying into Obama’s crap. Millions of them are “Hos,” you know what I mean Barky, wink wink?

Karma’s a bitch that way. I’m so glad I have a screen shot, because we all know that Obama has plucked Winston straight out of 1984 to do the Scrubbing for him.

https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/stepup?source=20080714_PV_ND_B-STCO

According to CNN, 2,867,454 votes were cast in the primary - 51% (1,458,814) for Senator Hillary Clinton and 47% (1,358,785) for Senator Barack Obama, and a smattering of votes (49,855) for John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and Chris Dodd combined.  In the Texas caucus 42,538 votes were reported.  Obama got 56% (23,918) and Clinton got 44% (18,620) of these votes.  Caucus voters were required to have voted in their precinct.  Consequently, caucus voters were a statistical subset of primary voters, but they did not vote the same way.

 Comparing the Texas primary to the Texas caucus has some unique challenges.  During the primary other candidates besides Clinton and Obama were on the ballot.  To equalize the percentages, the ballots cast for Edwards, Richardson, Biden, and Dodd were eliminated and Clinton’s and Obama’s percentages recomputed assuming the eliminated voters would split their votes in the same proportion as the rest of the electorate.  The recomputed percentages are Clinton 52% and Obama 48%.

 Clinton’s adjusted percentage of 52% of the primary vote is 8% points higher than her 44% in the caucus vote. Clinton moved from a four point win to a twelve point loss, a sixteen point shift.  Obama gained these eight percentage points moving from 48% in the primary to 56% in the caucuses.  

This statistically significant sixteen point difference is “the caucus factor,” a major factor in the Democratic presidential primary.  The existence of a caucus factor poses three important questions.  What accounts for the dramatic difference between the two results?  Was the “caucus factor” present in the other caucus states?  What do these results imply regarding the validity of other caucus results?
 
 No one doubts the accuracy of the almost three million Texas voters who selected Hillary Clinton as their choice for the Democratic nominee — but then why wouldn’t the caucus voters, a sample of the primary voters, make the same selection.  

The simplest explanation is that caucus voters are a sample of primary voters but not a random sample of primary voters.  Caucuses are held in the evening and take several hours.  Senator Clinton’s core voting groups, (senior citizens, shift workers, women, and women with children) are less likely to attend caucuses.  Senior citizens are less likely to go out at night, have difficulty driving in the dark, and go to bed earlier.  Mothers with young children are too busy in the evenings to spend several hours at a caucus.  And some people don’t go to caucuses because of the public nature of the declaration.  Voting is a private event, only you and God know who you voted for.  At a caucus a voter must publically declare for their candidate and resist influencing by the opponents supporters.  
 

Another factor that contributed to the Texas caucus factor was the less regulated nature of the caucuses.  Participants in the Texas caucus complained about the lack of validation of identity, undo influencing, and individuals signing several names on the caucus sheets.   How much these violations occurred and how much these violations impacted the results and in which direction is impossible to determine.

 Finally, Democratic insiders will say that success at a caucus depends on organization.  Did the Obama Campaign just out organize the Clinton campaign which contributed to their success in the Texas Caucus?

 On February 9, Washington State caucused to determine the distribution of the pledged delegates.   Obama won 21,629 to 9,992 votes or 68% to 31% and received 53 of the 78 pledged delegates.  Ten days later Washington State had a primary election in which no delegates were awarded yet 669,856 people chose to vote in this beauty contest.  Obama won this contest by 51% (354,112 votes) to 46% (315,744 votes).  How could Obama win by 37 points in a caucus and only 5 points in the primary, a 32-point difference?  The caucus factor is at work again.  Which result accurately reflects the will of the voters? Over twenty times the number of people participated in primary, should we trust the masses or the sanctioned election?  

 Further proof of the caucus factor can be shown by contrasting the difference between the results of the caucuses and the primaries collectively.  Fourteen states had caucuses — Senator Obama won thirteen of these caucuses.  The probability of that occurring in hotly contested race where popular vote is a statistical tie, is a statistical impossibility if the caucuses were a true representation of the voters.  In the states where primary elections were held, Senator Clinton has won 19 primaries and Senator Obama has won 17 primaries, reflecting the close nature of the Democratic Primary race.
 
 The difference between the margin of victory during caucuses and primaries again illustrates the inaccurate nature of the caucuses.  The average point spread in the 13 caucuses Obama won is 32 points.  The average of the point spread in the 17 primaries Obama won, is 21 points.  This eleven point difference is the caucus factor.

 The results in Texas, Washington, the number of caucuses won by Obama, and difference between the average margin of victory in the caucuses and primaries, all point to the existence of the caucus factor.  The variability of the results of the caucus returns also points to the unreliability of the caucus results.  Senator Clinton won two primaries in demographically similar states, Ohio and Pennsylvania, by the same ten point margin.   Yet when caucus results in similar states are compared, the disparity of the results is profound.  Obama won Idaho by 62 points and the demographically similar Wyoming by 23 points.  If the caucus results were reliable, the results of these two similar states would not be so disparate.

 Voters who participated in the caucuses had more influence in the election than voters in primaries.   In California, 4,677,788 votes were cast and 363 delegates were awarded.  In New York, 232 delegates were pledged in a primary that had 1,748,833 votes cast.  In Alaska a total of 405 persons “caucused” for 13 pledged delegates.  A person who participated in the Alaska Caucus had 242 times more influence in the Democratic Primary than a voter in the New York primary and 415 times more influence than a voter in the California primary.  With so few voters accounting for delegate selection in caucus states, results and delegate totals can be easily influenced and manipulated.

 The caucus factor is a real statistical event which inflated Obama’s lead over Clinton and misrepresented the will of the people. If all the caucus states had primaries, Obama’s margin of victory in those caucus states would have been smaller and most likely Clinton would have won some of the caucus states.  The Democratic Primary was extremely close and questions should be raised regarding the validity and reliability of the caucus results.  

Unfortunately, a win in a caucus state was given the same weight as a win in a state with a primary election, allowing Obama supporters to claim, “He’s won more states,” even though Clinton won more primaries.  

Even more disturbing is the fact that of the 14 Caucus States, eight are Dark Red states.  The Democrats have allowed the Red States like Wyoming, Nebraska, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota, Colorado and Nevada select their Democratic Nominee.  

This will result in certain disaster in the fall.

– Lynette Long
 
BIO: Dr. Lynette Long is a licensed psychologist practicing in Bethesda, Maryland.  She is the author of twenty books including fourteen math books.  Dr. Long has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs and was the host of One on One with Dr. Lynette Long.  She recently published Op-Ed’s in both USA Today and the Baltimore Sun about the current election cycle. Her blog is LynetteLong.com.

Watch the trailer of John Wellington Ennis’ new film, Free For All here. Then click on the link below to watch the entire film for free.

FREE FOR ALL! One Dude’s Quest to Save Democracy was aptly released on July 4, 2008. If you think we’ve just experienced caucus fraud, this beautifully produced film will remind you that we’ve got more big fish to fry.

The film hearkens back to the 2000 and 2004 election nightmares. Diebold voter machines were supposed to fix any leftover 2000 hanging-chad problems. However, leading up to the election, there were many warnings and red flags that the “fix” was in the machines, in that they were easily hackable, and the company’s neutrality was questionable. A simple retrospective statement by Sen. Robert Hagen (D-Ohio) describes his Diebold voting encounter:

It was one of the first times you got to press using the electronic voting machine. When I pressed Kerry, it went over to Bush.

The film explores the 2000 and 2004 elections, including: the Ohio and Florida debacles, missing ballot boxes, veracity of exit polls, illegal purge of voter rolls, restrictions to, and misinformation about, election day voter sign-in, and much, much more. In conclusion, the filmmaker opines:

“If Democracy isn’t free for all, then it’s not free for me.”

Watch the film. What do you think? Is Democracy Free For All, or a free for all? It’s in our hands . . . or is it?