It was the White People in Barack Obama's backround that were the Worst of All, Did the Media focus only on the Non Whites on Purpose?

I've never been comfortable with all the bashing of Barack Obama's non-white alliances. I guess it took me this long to figure out why. There are many white alliances in Barack Obama's background that have questionable character. George Soros would have to be number one on the list. Arianna Huffington would be number two. Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews tied for third, David Axelrod number four, perhaps Bill Ayers would be fifth, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid tied for sixth, the rest of the MSNBC gang at 7th.

It probably looked racist to Barack Obama supporters for the opposition to be more pre-occupied with the non-whites in Barack Obama's background. Perhaps white people should have just focused on the whites in Barack's background that were behaving in what can easily be seen as questionable behavior.

The sad part is Barack Obama has conocoted a rainbow coalition of people of all colors that have checkered pasts. I think the reason many of the opposition complaints didn't stick was because white detractors of Barack Obama pointed to the non-white people in Barack's past, while letting Barack Obama's shady supporters who were white, off the hook.

Besides the white people mentioned above who I think have behaved in an ethically challenged manner, I should also add all the political losers who were white, that got on the Barack Obama bandwagon to crush the Clintons. These white political losers include Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Edwards and Bill Richardson, ALL of whom have RUN FOR PRESIDENT or the Democratic Presidential nomination, and LOST!

It is an obvious slap in the face to the Clintons and lifelong democratic voters for all of these democratic presidential losers to just throw the Clintons to the curb and support a one term inexperienced senator when Bill Clinton has been the only two term democratic president in the last 50 years.

Think about it, Democratic presidential losers from the past 20 years, all gang up on the ONE AND ONLY democratic presidential winner's family. It's kind of creepy, and speaks to a coup of the democratic party, funded by George Soros.

In a past article I have written fondly of Pastor Wright, I think he is much smarter than Barack Obama. Ironically, above and beyond the issue of the people in Barack Obama's background, there was the issue of very unethical occurrences in this years 15 caucus contests, and the Barack Obama camp accepting over 200 million dollars in undocumented donations, this after rejecting matching funds that prior presidential candidates had all agreed to abide by.

So the question I have is, why didn't whites opposed to Barack Obama's supporters go after Barack Obama's white supporters? lol, there were PLENTY of white backers of Barack Obama that acted highly unethically in this election cycle. I can only begin to guess at the back room deals made and money possibly offered to get several prominent white people to back Barack Obama at the expense of the much better known and respected Clinton family.

I wish I had connected these dots earlier. In a way I did, as I have always tried to focus on caucus cheating issues, the concept of fair reflection denied earlier this year, Obvious media bias led by MSNBC, and sexism. I feel I never was able to reach those that didn't like Barack Obama for his non-white affiliations to find a better reason even when those better reasons existed.

If you are white, and you don't like Barack Obama's rainbow coalition of provocative supporters with questionable backgrounds, you made a mistake by going after the non-white Barack Obama supporters. If you were white, you should have focused on the provocative people backing Barack Obama, who were also white, there were plenty to go around.

Hillary Clinton Supporters find Support with John McCain Supporters.

It can be a fantastic feeling to connect with others who think as you do, especially when they did it before they ever met you. I VOTED FOR DEMOCRACY TODAY used the YouTube Video, I am a Hillary Clinton Supporter and I approved this message in their blog article today.

That is way cool!

Please spread the word, and spread this youtube video to any Hillary Clinton Voters who are still on the fence.

HILLARY CLINTON EARNED the 2008 Democratic NOMINATION, that is all I can go by.

PUMA is just stage one. Stage TWO is, HILLARY CLINTON EARNED THE 2008 DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION. Barack Obama's trip to Europe is and probably will remain the biggest embarrassment of the 2008 presidential campaign.

Barack Obama's European trip, in which he strolled out onto stage in Germany and actually believed he was already president of the United States and further believed he had somehow earned the privilege of standing in front of so many people, is a gaffe only surpassed by his rushing by and ignoring soldiers standing at attention without taking a moment to speak to them or acknowledge them, all this happened on the same trip!


Hillary Clinton won 40 more congressional districts than Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton HANDILY won all the swing states. Barack Obama received INFLATED delegate totals from the Caucus States. Hillary Clinton received DEFLATED delegate counts from her swing state wins, netting only five more delegates than Barack Obama 555 to 550, even though Hillary Clinton won 11 out of 12 swing state and Barack Obama LOST those same 11 out of 12 swing state contests!


Media Bias orchestrated by George Soros, Huffington Post, MSNBC, CNN, Time and Newsweek had a hand in Barack Obama having a false delegate lead. Internal Political Bias by Howard Dean, who was backed by George Soros in 2004, and John Kerry, also backed by George Soros in 2004, show a bought Democratic party that must either CHANGE and do the right thing, or this slap in the face against long time democrats cannot be forgotten.

One Person, One Vote Concept Destroyed by the Caucus State Votes.

One Person, One Vote Concept Destroyed by the Caucus State Votes.

Obama gained a questionable advantage in the democratic electoral process when his caucus state wins far exceeded the realistic margin of victory he would have gained if there had been an actual state primary vote instead of a caucus vote. The caucus state results have netted Barrack Obama an out of whack delegate gain of 169 delegates when compared to the number of people that actually voted. The caucus state wins for Barrack Obama were so out of the realistic margin of victory that if Hillary Clinton were awarded 4 MORE State of California primary victories by the same margin she won the first California Primary, Hillary Clinton would still net less delegates than Barrack Obama did from the caucus state votes.

Lets break down that last statistic to truly understand its meaning. Hillary Clinton won in a convincing manner in California yet 4 Californias and the 16 million and 785,548 votes they represent, including a winning margin for Hillary Clinton of 1 million and 665,340 votes, WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH to overtake Barrack Obama's inflated margin of victory in all the caucus states that involved a vote of only 1.1 million total voters and only 400,000 more votes for Obama. It appears it would take 9 Californias and 33 million votes with a 3.3 million vote advantage for Hillary Clinton to undo the advantage the caucus states inaccurately contributed to the 2008 democratic presidential race.

Do you see why the moment that Barrack Obama had overwhelmingly won undervote caucus states that his camp began bellowing that Hillary could not catch them no matter what! If the Caucus state margins of victory that Barrack Obama won by had actually represented the accurate winning percentage of that states voters, then there is no controversy. Yet look what happened in the State of Washington. Obama won the caucus vote by a 68-31% vote, but then in the non-binding primary vote held 10 days later, Barrack Obama barely won 50% to 49.6%. The danger of caucus vote states is that the much smaller voting sample WILL NOT actually represent the true will of that states populace. Does Barack Obama's "change" involve not accurately representing the true popular vote of each state in the country?

By setting up a caucus system in which one vote actually represents the will of 10 voters, the one person, one vote system has been throw off the rails and Barrack Obama has used this bias to create even more momentum and tumult among the democratic party. It was not until Barrack Obama suggested that Hillary was staying in the race and hurting the democratic party that Hillary's overall popularity dipped in the polls.

Just prior to the Pennsylvania primary, Barrack Obama had 57% of all delegates, but only 51% of the popular vote, further proof how the caucus states have influenced the 2008 Presidential election far beyond the number of people who actually voted.