Posts
I don't mind that Barack Obama is a slick backroom deal negotiator. I do mind that Barack Obama has lured millions of younger voters with his message of "change" when in fact Barack Obama is the ultimate backroom deal flim flam man negotiator.
Barack Obama took his name off of the Michigan Ballot to please Iowa caucus voters.
Iowa and New Hampshire are feeling pressure from many other states that want to usurp their place as the first two places that presidential candidates campaign in when the party nominations begin.
Barack Obama made a decision to take his name off of the Michigan ballot to please the Iowa voters. The plan worked to perfection as Hillary Clinton spent double what she originally intended to spend in Iowa, and still finished third.
It appears to me that Barack Obama made a decision to remove his name from the Michigan ballot specifically to gain an early edge over Hillary Clinton in Iowa, and the plan worked to perfection.
Barack Obama formed a secret alliance with John Edwards and Bill Richardson to share and exchange caucus votes. If Obama, Richardson or Edwards had "extra" caucus voters showing up at a specific caucus voting precinct, the extra voters would be exchanged among these three to ensure that they all finished in the top four in voting, So if Edwards runs strong in a specific precinct, he could give away some of his extra voters to either Obama or Richardson. By exchanging surplus voters the three could ensure they always finished among the top four (Hillary being the odd man, er, woman, out), making all three eligible for government funds.
In exchange for what I call "The Michigan Shenanigan", Barack SHOULD LOSE ALL OF HIS DELEGATES IN MICHIGAN and get NO delegates other than the ones he would get from among the uncommitted, which actually would have amounted to a significant amount, just not as many as Barack ended up getting. How the democratic party took pity on Barack for his deviousness is something only they can answer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Back your assumptions up with data and someone MIGHT think you have a clue as to what you're talking about.
So what are you planning on doing with this blog tomorrow?
I have posted on this blog the specific articles that speak on how Barack aligned with his buddies Edwards and Richardson.
So not only did they cheat among the volunteers over voting in caucus states, but then these over votes were used to pump up Barack's allies.
It sounds like you are saying if this is true (and it is), that Barack is disgraced.
Here's my beef with the way you blog...
The NUMBER ONE RULE in writing for the web, NEVER make your audience work for their information.
If you have other articles in your blog that speak to your current post and make light of issues being raised, LINK TO THEM.
It doesn't do a new reader any good to come here, read about some psuedo-scandal that only seems to be evident to you, and be expected to dig around one or more of your four blogs for an article that MIGHT contain a link to something that insinuates a conspiracy.
You're insinuating that Obama took his name off the ballot in Michigan to please Iowa Caucus voters who had voted a full 12 days ahead of Michigan voters... as if by some stretch of the imagination, Iowa Caucus voters cared about a race that, at the time, was a moot point? Please.
There ARE media outlets that don't favor Obama with their coverage... if your caucus news had any merit to it, we would have heard something by now from SOMEONE.
Obama needs 42 delegates to win the nomination. 25 Super Delegates are said to stand by his side later today leaving him with 17 delegate votes... LOSING South Dakota and Montana both would STILL give him more than 17 delegates and hand him the nomination.
I think Barack took his name off of the Michigan ballot well before the Iowa Caucusers voted.
While I agree I should put links within my articles, I DO MENTION IN CAPS ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF MY BLOG that one can use the search function that is located at the top left of this blog. However, if you do not know an article exists, you may not know to look for it.
As far as I have seen when I put links within my articles the link breaks up the article by putting lines above and below the link, so it kind overemphasizes the link and destroys the flow of the article as well.
I've also tried to create sub groups of stories and put them together in groups on the right margin side. I am compromised by the blog template not allowing me to make my group links on the right in a smaller font than the actual text in the article. I have asked google to give an option for text size for the links that is independent of the article size text but who knows if and when that will happen.
So you make good suggestions but I have not been comfortable doing them because of a couple of template limitations for an otherwise very terrific service.
I will right now, just to amaze you, research the date that Barack Obama had his name taken off the ballot in Michigan. Keep in mind that Barack could have pitched the concept of removing his name from the ballot to Iowa voters, found it got traction, and then gone ahead and actually removed his name.
Here is a link for you to check out.
http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1264
It's dated last year.
Regardless of when he pulled his name, my point still remains...
at the time, Michigan was a lost cause, no one had even thought of filing a grievance with the DNC, so to assume that there was a backhanded ulterior motive without solid proof of one is just misinformation to create noise.
FYI - http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D912O5FG0&show_article=1
James, now you're double talking. First you say presume Barack's name was taken off of the ballot after the Iow election, then when you find out Barack could have used "I've taken my name off of the Michigan ballot" speal in Iowa to gather popularity, you say it is irrelevant.
It's actually old school, clever pandering. Something Barack claimed he was not about.
To then give Barack even one delegate from Michigan is obscene.
First comment:
"You're insinuating that Obama took his name off the ballot in Michigan to please Iowa Caucus voters who had voted a full 12 days ahead of Michigan voters... as if by some stretch of the imagination, Iowa Caucus voters cared about a race that, at the time, was a moot point? Please."
Second:
"at the time, Michigan was a lost cause, no one had even thought of filing a grievance with the DNC, so to assume that there was a backhanded ulterior motive without solid proof of one is just misinformation to create noise."
Same point, different words... how is that double speak.
lol, than if it's not doublespeak it's doublewrong.
Barack, Edwards and Richardson ALL took their name off the ballot on the final day they could, back in Oct or November of 07.
Isn't is sad that probably less than 1% of the media even cares about this?
Was removing their names illegal? No...
Then they did nothing wrong.
Just because you feel it was backhanded doesn't make it bad.
My point is Barack should get NOTHING from Michigan. That was part of the gambit, Barack got an upfront HUGE push, but he should not have been given a pass in Michigan, it was kind of condescending to give him those delegates.
no one should get anything from michigan, a.m. they voted early in defiance of the rules set forth. the consequences were also duly explained to them: the loss of delegates. the only reason they are being seated at all is at the pleasure of the presumptive nominee, obama, in order to unify the party.
The problem is Michigan's reason for going earlier were totally valid. I touched on those reasons in an earlier article and was pleases to see senator Levin voice the same reasons at the DC meeting over the delegate issue.
Don't feed the idiot. He'll just breed and make lots of baby idiots.
James decided to play contrarian no matter what I brought up, so I'll recap it here. Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Bill Richardson ALL took their name off of the Michigan ballot in November of 2007. This enabled them to gain traction in BOTH Iowa and New Hampshire by criticizing Hillary Clinton for not taking her name off of the ballot in Michigan.
Even though Michigan was not first, they were so close to being first that it meant the candidates could not solely focus on Iowa and New Hampshire but would have to include Michigan as well.
This has BEEN DOCUMENTED ELSEWHERE.
Post a Comment