Here is the link to the newspaper that might be breaking the story first. Palm Beach Post
UNACCEPTABLE! A real man would have accepted having Michigan and Florida counting early on, when it could have hurt his chances at becoming the democratic nominee. Doing it now, on August 3rd, 2008, just shows a level of arrogance against Hillary Clinton supporters that is just beyond comprehension, almost.
Sure Barack Obama supporters can now whine, "well, no matter what we do, we just can't make Hillary Clinton Supporters happy". WRONG. That ship sailed as time dragged on and on any scenario that could help Hillary win, even if it was the ETHICAL AND CORRECT thing to do, was dumped overboard with virtually no possibility of a lifeline by the Barack Obama strategy crew.
You don't get to have it both ways. You don't get to cheat in the caucus states, cheat in the delegate count race, use the media to brow beat super delegates into CHANGING their vote from Hillary to Barack, you don't get to IGNORE that Hillary Clinton won 40 more congressional district contests than Barack Obama, and then try and rewrap Florida and Michigan and present it as a gift to Hillary Clinton supporters.
Every step that the Barack Obama camp takes lately is turning into huge missteps. That's what happens when you truly don't have the consensus of the majority, but you continue to pretend that you do.
Showing posts with label Florida. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Florida. Show all posts
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Why We Protest the Hillary Clinton Delegate Count.
Is this Fair Reflection? Does the Democratic Party believe in Fair Reflection? The question can't be answered, if it is never asked by the media.
Obama supporters don't care about Fair Reflection, but real democrats, do.
Obama supporters don't care about Fair Reflection, but real democrats, do.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Florida Michigan BackRoom Deals???
When the first commercial that appears on MSNBC after Hillary Clinton's suspension speech on Saturday is a commercial for Michigan, one wonders what is going on. Barack Obama achieved an early Iowa advantage by taking his name off of the Michigan ballot. It was a calculated gamble that Edwards, Obama and Richardson executed together on the final afternoon that one could legally take their name off of the Michigan ballot, and it paid off handsomely early on for Barack Obama in Iowa.It made Iowa residents happy to see three democrats "protest" Michigan moving their primary into January.
But then Barack Obama got an additional boost when the DNC, rather than acknowledge a political gamble that was now about to backfire on Barack Obama, instead protected Barack Obama and actually gave him Michigan delegates even though Obama voluntarily took his name off of the MIchigan ballot.
To add the final insult to the Michigan wound against Hillary Clinton, the very first commercial MSNBC ran after Hillary Clinton's suspension speech ended was a "move your company to Michigan commercial". This just looks like quid pro quo. Fall in line, back Barack, and we'll run your "come to Michigan" commercial on MSNBC. The arrogance of the people who have invaded the democratic party clearly has no bounds and apparently very little integrity as well.
Friday, June 6, 2008
"Fair Reflection" How the Democratic Process Ignored Fair Reflection.
The visual just below illustrates the OPPOSITE of the concept of "Fair Reflection". When voters have all day to vote, and vote in the privacy of a voting booth, the vote totals from that particular state more accurately reflect the will of the popular vote in that state.
When Voters didn't have all day to vote, could only vote in restricted locations and within a restricted time period, and had to vote in public rather than the privacy of a voting booth, Barack Obama did so well the numbers didn't accurately match up with the actual popular vote of that state for each candidate. This can be called "Fair Reflection, Denied".
Above is the ridiculous margin of victory for Barack Obama in the Idaho Caucus that had nothing to do with reality, but much to do with back room deals, the very thing Barack Obama claims to want to "change". Barack Obama succeeded by playing the very style of Old School politicking that Barack Obama claims he would "change". Below is the Result of the Idaho Primary, notice how much closer the final results are?
The Primary vote reveals a much closer 56%-37% margin of victory, Barack Obama's ridiculously unrepresentative win from the caucus vote was a 70%-17% margin of victory. Hillary enjoyed a 440% increase in her vote total in the primary vote, Barack Obama had a 140% increase in his primary vote total. The Primary Vote swing is 43% in Hillary's favor.
Up Above is the Nebraska Primary and Caucus Results. After losing in the Nebraska Caucus by a 68% to 32% margin of victory, Hillary Clinton once again closed the gap losing by only two percentage points, 49% to 47% in the Nebraska Primary. The Nebraska primary vote represents a 38% shift in the popularity of both candidates towards Hillary Clinton.
The Washington Primary offers almost an identical shift in numbers as the Nebraska primary. Hillary Clinton once again closed the gap from an unrealistic 68%-31% margin of victory in the Washington Caucus to 51% to 46% in the Washington Primary. The shift in popularity is 32% towards Hillary Clinton. (I recall these numbers used to be 50%-47%, but we'll go with the 51%-46%).
Yes, I believe in Fair Reflection, unfortunately other than a few intellectuals on Hillary Clinton's side, such as Harold Ickies, the phrase Fair Reflection is meaningless to the democratic party higher ups.
When Voters didn't have all day to vote, could only vote in restricted locations and within a restricted time period, and had to vote in public rather than the privacy of a voting booth, Barack Obama did so well the numbers didn't accurately match up with the actual popular vote of that state for each candidate. This can be called "Fair Reflection, Denied".
Above is the ridiculous margin of victory for Barack Obama in the Idaho Caucus that had nothing to do with reality, but much to do with back room deals, the very thing Barack Obama claims to want to "change". Barack Obama succeeded by playing the very style of Old School politicking that Barack Obama claims he would "change". Below is the Result of the Idaho Primary, notice how much closer the final results are?
The Primary vote reveals a much closer 56%-37% margin of victory, Barack Obama's ridiculously unrepresentative win from the caucus vote was a 70%-17% margin of victory. Hillary enjoyed a 440% increase in her vote total in the primary vote, Barack Obama had a 140% increase in his primary vote total. The Primary Vote swing is 43% in Hillary's favor.
Up Above is the Nebraska Primary and Caucus Results. After losing in the Nebraska Caucus by a 68% to 32% margin of victory, Hillary Clinton once again closed the gap losing by only two percentage points, 49% to 47% in the Nebraska Primary. The Nebraska primary vote represents a 38% shift in the popularity of both candidates towards Hillary Clinton.
The Washington Primary offers almost an identical shift in numbers as the Nebraska primary. Hillary Clinton once again closed the gap from an unrealistic 68%-31% margin of victory in the Washington Caucus to 51% to 46% in the Washington Primary. The shift in popularity is 32% towards Hillary Clinton. (I recall these numbers used to be 50%-47%, but we'll go with the 51%-46%).
Yes, I believe in Fair Reflection, unfortunately other than a few intellectuals on Hillary Clinton's side, such as Harold Ickies, the phrase Fair Reflection is meaningless to the democratic party higher ups.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Barack Obama's Error In Judgement Swept Under the Rug During Florida Michigan Discussions.
Never before has a democratic candidate received assistance in the acquisition of delegates in the manner in which Barack Obama received them this past weekend. Barack Obama was given Michigan delegates even though his name was not even on the Michigan ballot!
Several years ago Barack Obama challenged the petition names of those running against him for senate. Barack was able to get the top three competitors removed from the ballot by disqualifying their supporters signatures. I don't really think that is that controversial actually. It seems like Obama was able to ridicule old school style of politicking by being a bit slick. It was Barack's way of saying "I'm educated and above you now, I know your tricks, and I'll one up you".
In Michigan, Barack Obama took his name off of the Michigan ballot. Almost the entire media seems to accept this as being some kind of normal procedure. But in retrospect, it really makes very little sense. Isn't something better than nothing?
It turns out that Barack had just made another "slick" move. When Barack took his name off of the Michigan ballot, he did so as a way to endear himself to Iowa voters. It was Barack's way of telling Iowa that nobody better ever try and move their primary date up, Iowa is King! Knowing that by taking his name off of the Michigan ballot, Barack Obama would not only win the Iowa vote, but once again he could trick his own party members into the notion that, "How could the votes in Michigan count, I wasn't even on the ballot".
Dig a little further and we see that Richardson and Edwards took their names off of the Michigan ballots as well, how about that! Edwards and Richardson were in cahoots with Barack and articles have been written about how these three shared caucus voters. Edwards, Richardson, and Obama agreed to help prop each other in the caucus states votes by sharing their excess caucus voters! The top four finishers are eligible for government funding, so it ended up being a sleazy deal that helped them all out.
Is this the kind of change Barack Obama is bringing to the democratic party? Back room deals and shenanigans in which the media always presents the sleazy backroom deals in the best light possible? Barack Obama takes his name off of the ballot in Michigan to gain favor with Iowa voters, then turns around and looks like a victim because his name was off of the ballot in Michigan. As if that wasn't enough, the DNC turn actually took 4 delegates away from Hillary Clinton in the process! But not to be outdone, the DNC also gave Barack a whole slew of MIchigan delegates THAT WERE NOT HIS!
Wow, I'm almost impressed. NOT!
Several years ago Barack Obama challenged the petition names of those running against him for senate. Barack was able to get the top three competitors removed from the ballot by disqualifying their supporters signatures. I don't really think that is that controversial actually. It seems like Obama was able to ridicule old school style of politicking by being a bit slick. It was Barack's way of saying "I'm educated and above you now, I know your tricks, and I'll one up you".
In Michigan, Barack Obama took his name off of the Michigan ballot. Almost the entire media seems to accept this as being some kind of normal procedure. But in retrospect, it really makes very little sense. Isn't something better than nothing?
It turns out that Barack had just made another "slick" move. When Barack took his name off of the Michigan ballot, he did so as a way to endear himself to Iowa voters. It was Barack's way of telling Iowa that nobody better ever try and move their primary date up, Iowa is King! Knowing that by taking his name off of the Michigan ballot, Barack Obama would not only win the Iowa vote, but once again he could trick his own party members into the notion that, "How could the votes in Michigan count, I wasn't even on the ballot".
Dig a little further and we see that Richardson and Edwards took their names off of the Michigan ballots as well, how about that! Edwards and Richardson were in cahoots with Barack and articles have been written about how these three shared caucus voters. Edwards, Richardson, and Obama agreed to help prop each other in the caucus states votes by sharing their excess caucus voters! The top four finishers are eligible for government funding, so it ended up being a sleazy deal that helped them all out.
Is this the kind of change Barack Obama is bringing to the democratic party? Back room deals and shenanigans in which the media always presents the sleazy backroom deals in the best light possible? Barack Obama takes his name off of the ballot in Michigan to gain favor with Iowa voters, then turns around and looks like a victim because his name was off of the ballot in Michigan. As if that wasn't enough, the DNC turn actually took 4 delegates away from Hillary Clinton in the process! But not to be outdone, the DNC also gave Barack a whole slew of MIchigan delegates THAT WERE NOT HIS!
Wow, I'm almost impressed. NOT!
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Florida Michigan Imbroglio, Why the Obamamites Can't Win, with Picture Essay.
Robert Wexler makes a very controversial statement....."What we are saying is that up to the number of 19, which is the maximum amount allowable under the Ausman Petition and under your rules. WE THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN WILL SUPPORT THAT EFFORT, AND WE DO SO, WE DO SO, IN AN EFFORT OF UNITY.""Why Mr. Ickes, is it a significant concession?"
"Because in the State of Ohio and the State of Pennsylvania, TOGETHER, Senator Clinton WON A TOTAL OF 19 DELEGATES!!!"
"and here we are today offering a resolution that brings Florida voters TOGETHER, that actually amounts to both the victories of Ohio and Pennsylvania! Let us UNIFY, LET US MOVE ON!" -Robert Wexler
(The pro Obama supporters cheer this rampantly arrogant and completely misguided, idiotic reasoning. It is this "reasoning" which also permeates the elitist Obama brainchild to an alarming degree)."
------------------------
Commentary by Alessandro Machi about the above statement of Robert Wexler.
Besides Ohio and Pennsylvania, Mr. Wexler could have added Texas, Nevada, and Indiana to his infamous list, All Hillary Clinton Wins, that all in all have netted Hillary Clinton ONLY 18 delegates!
Do you see the narcissism and arrogance, the "mine, mine, mine" style of politicking the Obama camp runs? Actually bragging that 19 delegates is an incredibly generous offer because it is one more than the sum total of delegates that Hillary Clinton picked up in the swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania, PLUS Texas, Nevada, and Indiana, ALL HILLARY CLINTON VICTORY STATES!
lol, isn't it possible, just possible, that winning a decisive plurality when millions of voters vote, (also known as "Fair Reflection") is more significant and bankable than the cheating the Obama camp did in the caucus states?
Fair Reflection is a concept that is completely oblivious to the Barack Obama camp and clearly was not used as a bellweather to limit the amount of cheating that the Barack Obama side was involved in during their campaigning.
A wise leader knows to limit the amount of cheating to just below what will be noticed. lol, Clearly Barack Obama is not a wise leader.
Ickes stunned into Silence by the bravado of the intellectually bankrupt opposition.
Harold Ickes asks, I gather that you agree with the concept of fair reflection? Mr. Wexler looks confused, but smugly confident nonetheless since he doesn't fear that which he cannot comprehend. The pro Obama side cheers on Mr. Wexler as if to say "You may not know what "Fair Reflection means", but we don't either so it must not matter".
In a signature moment that defines the Obama campaign motto of "If we don't understand you, then you don't make sense", Mr. Wexler mockingly and cockily presumes that not only does he not know what fair reflection is, it just doesn't matter to him nor the Obama side.
Mr. Ickes, realizing that he is up against pure bravado backed by youthful inexperience, does not attempt to educate the defiantly uneducatable. This is what the real democratic party is up against. Youthful arrogance that can't comprehend it was Bill Clinton's administration that laid the foundation for their own parents to save money, so they could go to college, and then hate and cheat against Hillary Clinton. wow.
Hillary Clinton is also up against a sordid duo of Billionaire George Soros and secret love interest Arianna Huffington and the politics of hating those who stay married, competently raise a child, and show their love and respect for each other through their mutual teamwork as husband and wife. The democratic party is being done in by ilicit lovers who have fricasseed a successful, intelligent, married woman. double wow.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Hillary Never Waffled on Florida and Michigan Delegates Counting
On Jan 25, 2008, Senator Clinton stated the following in a press release:
“I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee.
“I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election, and so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan. I know not all of my delegates will do so and I fully respect that decision. But I hope to be President of all 50 states and U.S. territories, and that we have all 50 states represented and counted at the Democratic convention.
“I hope my fellow potential nominees will join me in this.
“I will of course be following the no-campaigning pledge that I signed, and expect others will as well.”
She has stated this very same position on numerous occasions:
February 22, 2008:
March 12, 2008:
March 12, 2008:
March 17, 2008:
March 20, 2008:
March 26, 2008:
April 2, 2008:
April 4, 2008:
Is fairness in the media too much to ask for?
“I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee.
“I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election, and so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan. I know not all of my delegates will do so and I fully respect that decision. But I hope to be President of all 50 states and U.S. territories, and that we have all 50 states represented and counted at the Democratic convention.
“I hope my fellow potential nominees will join me in this.
“I will of course be following the no-campaigning pledge that I signed, and expect others will as well.”
She has stated this very same position on numerous occasions:
February 22, 2008:
March 12, 2008:
March 12, 2008:
March 17, 2008:
March 20, 2008:
March 26, 2008:
April 2, 2008:
April 4, 2008:
Is fairness in the media too much to ask for?
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Debunking the Reasons Given for Not Counting Michigan and Florida votes.
There are several reasons that nullify the "but Hillary agreed" position.
The first argument against the "But Hillary Agreed" position is, Barack Obama was losing in both Florida and Michigan and had nothing to gain by not agreeing to the DNC proposal. This is very important to note because all everyone wants to do is focus on what Hillary said or did.
Barack Obama seems to get too much credit for doing things that involved nothing more than political expediency. Barack Obama's "no" vote for the war in Iraq had more to do with mirroring the position other candidates campaigning for the Senate seat Barack would eventually win had already publicly taken. Barack Obama had NOTHING TO LOSE (other than delegates to Hillary Clinton if he voted no) by voting to sanction Florida and Michigan, so why does he get so much credit?
Hillary Clinton did have something to lose by saying no to the "agreement" to not count Florida and Michigan. Hillary Clinton would have been made to look greedy and afraid by the biased media that had already coagulated around Barack Obama. "Why is Hillary afraid to lose Florida and Michigan?" the media would ask. Barack Obama would have called not agreeing to not count Florida and Michigan more "old school politics", sticking to the same old Washington style politics even when a wrong has been committed.
To argue "but Hillary agreed" as a reason to not count Florida and Michigan should then mean that the votes from those two states MUST NEVER EVER EVER COUNT in this election cycle. If the Florida and Michigan votes are only made to count when they favor Barack Obama, as in putting Barack over the top in the delegate race, then that will mean Hillary Clinton was twice penalized after going along with the DNC committee every step of the way. Hillary Clinton has already received a several month penalty because the Florida and Michigan delegates have not been counted. A penalty HAS ALREADY OCCURRED. This is a fact that seems to be obscured by the media.
There are more reasons. If the situation had been reversed, and Barack Obama had won the states of Florida and Michigan and needed those delegate votes to win or stay in the race, Hillary Clinton would have been portrayed as not being able to win on a fair, 50 state landscape, but in typical old school style of politicking, had shortened the goal posts to ensure victory.
"What about Michigan, Barack Obama didn't even have his name on the ballot, how can it be fair to count Michigan?"
Isn't it kind of stupid to take your name off of a ballot if you're one of the two favored candidates? If Hillary Clinton had taken her name off of the Michigan Ballot and Barack Obama had not, the media would have had a field day making fun of her and her naivete. The Barack Obama people would have flung hyperbole so far and wide it wouldn't matter where the goal posts were. "Of course she took her name off the ballot, she was going to lose!" they would have chortled. Another rant I am sure we would have heard would be, "I can't see how someone naive enough to take their name off of the Michigan ballot can run our country".
Shouldn't Barack Obama have asked Hillary Clinton to also take her name off of the ballot as well, and if Hillary said no, then he does so at his own risk. Clearly Barack Obama made a huge mistake and the media has not once questioned his judgement in making such a colossal blunder. Barack Obama ERRED in taking his name off of the Michigan Ballot, but the biased media is SOOOO biased nobody is confident enough to state the truth.
Lets say it now for the first time, by not getting Hillary Clinton to also agree to take her name off of the Michigan Ballot, Barack Obama acted foolishly and impulsively in a manner I would not expect from a presidential candidate. It follows a pattern of behavior that Hillary Clinton has already pointed out several months ago, a earnestness to move to quickly and idealistically without having demonstrating enough caution.
As if all the above is not enough, did you know that North Carolina was given 28 extra bonus delegates to NOT move their election contest forward! A pro Obama state gets 28 extra delegates to not move their contest forward, meanwhile two pro Hillary states don't get offered any extra delegates for not moving their election date, and instead get penalized and denied their right to count. That doesn't sound very fair, does it? I expect fairness from the democratic party if they want my vote.
Denying Hillary Clinton her Florida win is like denying Barrack Obama his Illinois win. The demographics in Florida heavily favor Hillary Clinton no matter when the contest would have been held. Since Florida has already been suspended for this long and Hillary Clinton was denied fair access to a state she would have won, giving her a Florida Win immediately would be the fair and proper thing to do.
The first argument against the "But Hillary Agreed" position is, Barack Obama was losing in both Florida and Michigan and had nothing to gain by not agreeing to the DNC proposal. This is very important to note because all everyone wants to do is focus on what Hillary said or did.
Barack Obama seems to get too much credit for doing things that involved nothing more than political expediency. Barack Obama's "no" vote for the war in Iraq had more to do with mirroring the position other candidates campaigning for the Senate seat Barack would eventually win had already publicly taken. Barack Obama had NOTHING TO LOSE (other than delegates to Hillary Clinton if he voted no) by voting to sanction Florida and Michigan, so why does he get so much credit?
Hillary Clinton did have something to lose by saying no to the "agreement" to not count Florida and Michigan. Hillary Clinton would have been made to look greedy and afraid by the biased media that had already coagulated around Barack Obama. "Why is Hillary afraid to lose Florida and Michigan?" the media would ask. Barack Obama would have called not agreeing to not count Florida and Michigan more "old school politics", sticking to the same old Washington style politics even when a wrong has been committed.
To argue "but Hillary agreed" as a reason to not count Florida and Michigan should then mean that the votes from those two states MUST NEVER EVER EVER COUNT in this election cycle. If the Florida and Michigan votes are only made to count when they favor Barack Obama, as in putting Barack over the top in the delegate race, then that will mean Hillary Clinton was twice penalized after going along with the DNC committee every step of the way. Hillary Clinton has already received a several month penalty because the Florida and Michigan delegates have not been counted. A penalty HAS ALREADY OCCURRED. This is a fact that seems to be obscured by the media.
There are more reasons. If the situation had been reversed, and Barack Obama had won the states of Florida and Michigan and needed those delegate votes to win or stay in the race, Hillary Clinton would have been portrayed as not being able to win on a fair, 50 state landscape, but in typical old school style of politicking, had shortened the goal posts to ensure victory.
"What about Michigan, Barack Obama didn't even have his name on the ballot, how can it be fair to count Michigan?"
Isn't it kind of stupid to take your name off of a ballot if you're one of the two favored candidates? If Hillary Clinton had taken her name off of the Michigan Ballot and Barack Obama had not, the media would have had a field day making fun of her and her naivete. The Barack Obama people would have flung hyperbole so far and wide it wouldn't matter where the goal posts were. "Of course she took her name off the ballot, she was going to lose!" they would have chortled. Another rant I am sure we would have heard would be, "I can't see how someone naive enough to take their name off of the Michigan ballot can run our country".
Shouldn't Barack Obama have asked Hillary Clinton to also take her name off of the ballot as well, and if Hillary said no, then he does so at his own risk. Clearly Barack Obama made a huge mistake and the media has not once questioned his judgement in making such a colossal blunder. Barack Obama ERRED in taking his name off of the Michigan Ballot, but the biased media is SOOOO biased nobody is confident enough to state the truth.
Lets say it now for the first time, by not getting Hillary Clinton to also agree to take her name off of the Michigan Ballot, Barack Obama acted foolishly and impulsively in a manner I would not expect from a presidential candidate. It follows a pattern of behavior that Hillary Clinton has already pointed out several months ago, a earnestness to move to quickly and idealistically without having demonstrating enough caution.
As if all the above is not enough, did you know that North Carolina was given 28 extra bonus delegates to NOT move their election contest forward! A pro Obama state gets 28 extra delegates to not move their contest forward, meanwhile two pro Hillary states don't get offered any extra delegates for not moving their election date, and instead get penalized and denied their right to count. That doesn't sound very fair, does it? I expect fairness from the democratic party if they want my vote.
Denying Hillary Clinton her Florida win is like denying Barrack Obama his Illinois win. The demographics in Florida heavily favor Hillary Clinton no matter when the contest would have been held. Since Florida has already been suspended for this long and Hillary Clinton was denied fair access to a state she would have won, giving her a Florida Win immediately would be the fair and proper thing to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
