Barack Obama has Already Sunk his own Cause.

As I analyze the month by month goings on in this years democratic election, I find Barack Obama has never failed to choose mathematically elevatng his chances of becoming president, even if the mathematical tactics alienate tens of millions of voters. All along, at every bend where Barack Obama could manipulate a result in his favor, he and his handlers have taken the opportunity and run with it.

Knowing that he would lose in both Michigan and Florida, Barack agreed to "not let those states count". Somehow the media actually gives Barrack Obama kudos for nobly agreeing not to let two huge states votes count, states that he was going to lose in. Pundits actually think that Barack did some kind of amazing gesture by taking his name off the ballot in Michigan. If Hillary Clinton had done that, the pundits would be laughing at her and her lack of judgement. But Barack Obama does it and it is lauded as a pro party act. Why didn't Hillary take her name off of the ballot back in January? Why did Barack? Barack did because any state that he won't get a majority vote in is a state that shall be called "denial".

Never mind that Barack Obama ran cable televison ads a week or two leading up to the elections in Florida. This tactic by the Obama camp has become known as the "Hedge your bet" maneuver. The Obama camp is constantly hedging their bets. Anything that favors Hillary MUST BE DENIED or called racist, and anything that favors Barack Obama is due to hard work and planning, and never to his outspending Hiillary in every state they compete in, or to cheating of the kind that went on in the caucus states.

After Barack Obama decided to let the votes of Michigan and Florida only count when they can no longer have an affect on the outcome of the race, came the caucuses of February. In as many as four or five caucuses, Barack Obama received a 30% margin of victory in states that were virtually tied in the polls that preceded the votes. Once again, the math matters more to Barack Obama then the disenfranchisement of millions of democratic voters who simply want their vote fairly represented in the caucus states.

Then came Ohio and Texas, in which Barack Obama was able to lose the popular vote in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island, but gleefully chortle that Hillary barely made a dent in the delegate race because of the caucus shenanigans of Texas.

Next was a solid Pennsylvania win for Hillary Clinton, with the Obama people claiming that since Barack drove down a 20-25 point lead to 10 points, it could hardly be called a victory. Never mind that Obama outspent Hillary 3-1 in Pennsylvania. Then the exact opposite situation happened in North Carolina.

North Carolina ended up being a virtual identical rehash of the Pennsylvania race, but in reverse. But once again the media and Barack uses math to somehow claim that his victory in North Carolina was a back breaker, even though Hillary won Indiana, which had been deemed the tiebreaker several weeks earlier but suddenly it was as if that had never been said by Barack.

Then came a shockingly huge win in West Virginia for Hillary Clinton, in which once again, Barack Obama tried to overshadow the results by playing the John Edwards card. Time and time again the media and Barack Obama have played the numbers card, this time equating John Edwards and his 18 delegates as more meaningful than Hillary's win in West Virginia.

The perpetual use of numbers in an attempt to obfuscate the reality that Barack does not have a true democratic majority will probably just alienate many middle aged and older democrats. Don't be surprised if many of the young, thuggish internet egg heads that helped steal the caucus state vote for Barack Obama while also rationalizing not counting Florida and Michigan actually alienate many, many long time democrats in this years fall election.

If there was still time, Hillary Clinton could probably run as an independent this fall, and gain the most votes of any of the three candidates.

Don't let your vote be Bought by the Highest Bidder.

Don't let your vote be Bought by the Highest Bidder.

Obama supporters on Huffington Post gleefully write that Obama is outspending Hillary Clinton by margins of 4-1 or greater in Pennsylvania. How can a candidate that is running as a Washington outsider outspend a Washington insider by such a wide margin, still lose in several important states, but still be considered the "favorite" to win the democratic nomination?

Why would any true democrat be gleeful at having a nominee with the biggest pockets barely eeke out a lead over another popular candidate who is spending significantly less money? It sounds like forces outside of the mainstream democrat want Barrack Obama to defeat Hillary Clinton, even if these outside forces have no intention of voting for Barrack this fall.

That would help explain how Barrack Obama can operate a money guzzling Hummer campaign in a hybrid campaign. How can a real democrat find it a good thing that the candidate that guzzles the most money can barely create a tiny lead in the popular vote while losing all of the big states AND a majority of the swing states?

Barrack Obama outspent HIllary Clinton by 4-1 in Ohio, and lost. Apparently Barrack Obama will outspend Hillary Clinton by a margin of 4-1 in Pennsylvania as well. If Hillary Clinton can win the overall popular vote of these two states while Barrack Obama outspends Hillary Clinton by 400%, what type of message is that sending?

Is it reasonable to assume that if Hillary Clinton were outspending Barrack Obama by a 4-1 margin in Ohio and Pennsylvania that Hillary would have won both states by 20% or more? Just who is the more popular candidate? I thought "change" meant not buying the popular vote by spending the most money. When Barrack Obama speaks of change, is he actually speaking of the change in your pocket?

My theory is that Barrack Obama's supporters are comprised of 15% of all Republicans (who may or may not vote for him in the fall,) 70% of all independents, and 40% of all democrats. I futher theorize that Hillary Clinton is probably supported by 60% of all democrats, 20% of all independents, and 10% of all republicans (who probably won't vote for her in the fall). Please note that these two sets of numbers do not equal 100% each because each group of voters varies in size, however the democrat numbers do equal 100%, and that is the key.

Hillary Clinton is most likely favored by more real democrats than Barrack Obama is. Shouldn't the candidate that is more popular within their own political party get the nomination?

If more real democrats support Hillary Clinton than Barrack Obama as I am theorizing, then there are more democrats who could become demoralized and disenfranchised if their first choice, Hillary Clinton, is defeated by a "crossover hodge podge of support" style of candidate who has had a huge spending advantage, yet still has lost in several key states. The same cannot be said of Hillary Clinton. HIllary Clinton has not outspent Barrack Obama by a 4-1 margin in any state and then lost.

Which gets me to my final point, Do you want to your vote to be bought by the highest bidder?