As a frustrated Hillary volunteer, I just spent a day doing a Super Delegate analysis of support, state by state. For any who wonder what is really happening, go see this analysis at NoQuarter, under post “Letter to SuperDelegates” in the comment section.

In sum, it will show you a consistent, diabolical pattern of SD votes for obama, against the Will of the People of every state, or vastly disproportionate to the primary outcome of the state. It also shows, painfully, that SD support for Hillary has been withheld, or totally circumvented, even in states where she had big wins!

So,the cat’s out of the bag - SUPERDELEGATES ARE STEALING THE ELECTION! (because, by circumventing the voting results of the people, they are depriving the Nomination to the Candidate most popular and most qualified to win the election.

Therefore, sober fact is STEAL THE NOMINATION = Steal the ELECTION and don’t even wait until November to do it.

CAUTION, please, to some as above, who said they will “still vote for down-ticket Dems”. BE AWARE, those down-ticket Dems are also Super Delegates - and they are the ones stealing the election from Hillary.

In many cases, these down ticket candidates have been generously bribed with the bottomless funds of Obama’s special interest financing (which includes millions from both major corporations - in bundled money form and millions more from Muslims (yes, that’s true - from Rezko & Auchi’s money chain in the Mid East, to Farrakan’s Nation of Islam, to the Hezbollah front Qwazini in Michigan, to many more.

Those Congressional candidates who are not being bought may be under duress of threats, just as La Rouche site reported was the case of J Edwards, who was told that if he didn’t come out RIGHT NOW for Obama, he’d be permanently exiled from the party.

If Obama is given this crooked coronation, I personally intend to campaign AGAINST all down-ticket Democrats, who gave Obama their SD endorsement.

Comment by michelle | 2008-05-22 01:27:03

I don’t want to sound like too much of a conspiracy theorist or anything, but here goes.

Could it be possible that the DNC, from the beginning, was hellbent on forcing Clinton out and making Obama the nominee? Look at the way Dean handled the various states with early primaries:
New Hampshire– no penalty
Iowa– no penalty, Obama spends a lot of time/money here
South Carolina– no penalty, majority of primary voters are AA

Michigan–Clinton very popular, Obama a virtual unknown. Instead of stripping the supers and having the pledged delegates count for half, Dean and co. do something utterly unprecedented: none of the delgates count
Florida– Clinton extremely popular here, Obama a virtual unknown. Same unusual treatment suffered by Michigan.

Florida and Michigan had 313 pledged delegates up for grabs and would have given an early victory and lead in the delegates.
Iowa, NH, and SC? Whopping total of 141 pledged delegates.
Further, we all know that Obama wanted to delegitimize the results of Michigan by taking his name off the ballot and that he convinced Edwards to do the same. The rules did not require this in any shape of form. (did Axelrod plan this, so that Obama could later claim the uncommitted vote?). They all agreed not to campaign, but as we know, Obama violated that because of campaign commercials in Florida.

Iowa went according to plan, but NH did not. In order to win, Obama had to fraudulently claim that the Clintons were racists before the SC primary. The only way he is leading in the delegate count today was because of the points SC memo, convincing AA voters that the Clintons were racists. The DNC aided and abetted Obama and Axelrod (Clyburn, Donna Brazile “upset” with Bill Clinton, etc) since this was the ONLY way to prevent Clinton from getting the nomination.

I’m sorry for this rather inartful post, but reading this article got me thinking. And the thought just wouldn’t go away, and I think there’s a reason for this. Whatever the hell is true, I am THIS MUCH MORE dedicated to getting Michigan and Florida to count the way they voted (Obama gets NOTHING from the Michigan primary!!!!).
If clinton does not win, I hope someone will look into what I have said.

Everyone should be a member of at least one environmental organization. Because we are killing off all life on this planet. 

Link below to depressing reality:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/ 16/wildlife.shortage/index.html

I don't know what is going on within the NYT, but their recent political coverage is an indication that things are bad. 

Most New Yorkers like and support Hillary Clinton. 

There are plenty of Obama supporters.  But generally, this is a Clinton town.

And we are stunned by sadistic the way our paper has turned on our candidate - and us!  Our feelings be damned.  

The paper has reached the point of zealotry, that our feelings no longer matter.  

Obama makes the front page daily. 

Their Clinton "articles" are vacuous hit pieces.  Calculated to make Clinton look foolish. Even though she as the popular vote.

Their political team is made up of hacks like Patrick Healey, who eschew journalistic integrity to deceive and manipulate readers. 

And Julie Bosman, who writes at the ugliest propaganda level: 

"... a supporter gave her a three-foot-long balloon replica of herself, complete with blond hair, black pantsuit and wide pink smile, which Mrs. Clinton promptly took on her plane and laughingly showed off to reporters.

Little more than two weeks later, the doll lay on the sofa by her seat on the plane, shriveled and deflated."

“I don’t really get the point of her carrying on,” said Tim Ledford, 29, a store clerk who had wandered upstairs to catch a glimpse of Mrs. Clinton. “If it’s done, it’s done.” 

Today, the NYT war against its readers reached a pinnacle. With an article called "She Just Might Be President Someday." 

The illustration features a faceless woman.  Because the little dig at Clinton supporters is that that woman will not be Clinton.

Can newspaper that taunts its loyal readership, stay in business?

Obama's marketing team brands Obama as the fresh
new change from "Old School" Clinton politics. 

This link will give you a clue to what Obama means.
It isn't new, it isn't fresh and it sure isn't clean. 

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4 861699&page=1

Like the his campaign told Canada:
"Don't listen to what Obama tells voters. It's just rhetoric."