Posts
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.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I truly am sorry for the disappointment you must feel about your candidate not getting the nomination, but please keep some perspective.
Everyone who feels strongly about a primary candidate stands the chance to be let down when another one gets nominated. I'm sure the Edwards supporters didn't feel too good about his early loss.
Keep in mind that Hillary Clinton also agreed, in September, that Michigan and Florida should lose their delegates if they violated DNC rules.
But the math speaks to a pattern of manipulation designed to cherry pick whose vote counts. The caucus states, Florida and Michigan, One of Baracks biggest win was his own state of Illinois which just helps solidify the idea that his out of state and in the rest of the country popularity is significantly less than Hillary Clinton.
The disappointment is not in losing, it's in trailing to very questionable tactics that at the end of the day, don't actually represent a majority of democrats.
But thanks for you input anyways.
Looks like one of the paid bloggers got in the first comment. And, even if not a paid blogger, its a sad effort to "empathasize" with Clinton supporters. I will have none of it! Your article here outlines the disgrace and fiasco which is the Obama campaign. We can only hope that some kind of miracle occurs and justice prevails. If Obama is successful in his "theft" of the nomination through extremely shady tactics it will go down in the history books as one of the great political HOAXES. People will look back and wonder how the hell he ever got away with it. Shame, shame, shame.
So, Obama calls himself a "Constitutional Law Professor"!
What U. S.Constitutional advocate would tell voters in FL and MI, "Your votes do not count?" IO, NH and SC changed their primary dates without retribution! The DNC Rules Committee has said, "We had to do something to stop other states from moving their primaries!" FL & MI votes must be counted or there is NO DEMOCRATIC PARTY!
Barbara Peacock
bpeacock1@sbcglobal.net
I live in Washington State where we have both caucus and primary and we were basicly told that our primary votes didn't matter and some people said there was no point in voting!
The caucus was a joke! Obama supporters bully and push their way around till they get what they want. They intimidate people.
This is NOT in ANY way shape or form democratic! It's a disgrace!
CQ4Hillary
The Media has completely given Barack Obama a pass on his Michigan stunt. There was no valor or credibility in what Obama did. Barack kept his name off of the ballot because the absolute best he was going to do at that time was a tie with Hillary Clinton, and most likely Barack would have lost by anywhere from 5-12 points.
When a candidate KNOWS they are not going to win a contest as large as Michigan, of course they are NOT going to want it to count. So while the media says it is Hillary that agreed to not let Michigan count and then changed her mind, it is actually Barack who just did what was the absolutely best thing, for himself and his campaign.
No we are not paid bloggers. We are just surfing the net like you. It is understandable that you would feel a deep tinge of sadness (for some turning to anger) if the candidate you worked so hard for lost. But that is the case. I believe most undecideds will not feel too good about Hillary campaigning for the votes to count when she was the first person to sign a document saying they shouldn't months ago. She really wants to win, but I do not see her motivation as altruistic at this point. This is borderline crazy now. Call me a paid blogger if you want; I'd love to see some money. We're not paid; we just don't see things the way you do. Take care,
Ryan
Post a Comment