The Light: Hillary

© 2010 jbjd

A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (2 of 3) is the second installment in the 3-part series describing the fraud pulled off at the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention in order to ensure Obama would receive the nomination so that his name would appear next to the D on the general election ballot . (For the first installment, go to A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 3) (or at NoQuarter).)

Much of this article consists of comments I posted on blogs in August 2008, which provide historical and retrospective context for the conclusions at which I presently arrive. PLEASE READ THESE COMMENTS, in order, while imagining you are a part of the Obama campaign’s team of dirty tricksters. This will help you to understand the way in which events leading up to the convention unfolded, and how and why in the end, they had to pull off a coup in order to secure the nomination.

Part 2: Lead-up to the Coup

Recall that the motive of the movers and shakers behind candidate Obama, was to get his name on the general election ballot by making him the nominee of the Democratic Party as far as possible in advance of the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention. But notwithstanding the nefarious means they had employed throughout the primary and caucus contests, they had nonetheless failed to secure the nomination. No matter what they tried, they could not undermine Clinton into relinquishing her bid for the nomination. Why, even now that the primary season was over, the candidate only suspended but did not end her campaign. So, over the summer Obama’s minions, having failed to secure the nomination based on the number of delegates pledged to him, now set out to corral the hundreds of delegates pledged to her, determined to steal his nomination before the convention.

I only created the “jbjd” blog in late August, 2008, after the convention. So, in June, after Clinton suspended her bid for the nomination, I continued commenting on other people’s blogs. For the most part, my focus was fixed on ridding the blogosphere of its misconceptions about specific facts related to the Obama and Clinton narratives, and not on improving people’s understanding of the electoral process. Because back then, I was as ignorant as to the nuts and bolts of our Constitutional republic as the average citizen 2 (two) years later, remains. Especially with respect to the role played by our 2 (two) major political parties.

By the first week in August, any knowledge deficit I had suffered regarding the electoral process was rapidly melting away. (Although as you will see, looking back, some of my comments sound so naive.)

Responding to rumors she might not be formally entered into nomination, Clinton supporters began pushing to ensure her name would appear on the ballot at the convention. According to DNC rules – by August, I was studying those rules – this would require the signatures of at least 300 pledged delegates, as well as the candidate. Her pledged delegates from all over the country had been demanding the opportunity to ‘represent’ the candidate the voters elected them to vote for at the convention. And, like the rest of us who had watched that May 31 meeting of the RBC, they were still smarting from the treatment their candidate had received at the hands of other members of her party. As a result, gathering the 300 signatures would be easy. But here was another problem. The Chair could refuse to enter into nomination anyone who failed to demonstrate loyalty to the Democratic Party. In light of the meme from party officials that Obama’s nomination was already a fait accompli, putting her signature on such a petition could be construed as evidence she was being disloyal to the party, which perceived disloyalty could become a bar to her formal nomination.

Yet, if her name was not formally entered and accepted into nomination then, any votes cast for her from the floor call of the roll would only be recorded as “Present.”

(Please note, from here on in, I will no longer cite to any rules of the DNC. Because another epiphany that came to me in August was this: the DNC is a private club. Thus, it can make and break its own rules. And it set up volumes of rules and by-laws that govern operations, with auspicious sounding titles like “Charter,” “Constitution,” “Model Rules to Delegate Selection Process,” and “Call to the Convention.” But here’s the thing about all these club rules: they can be changed at any time. According to club rules. Plus, “discretion” is written into everything. In other words, even if officials of the party engage in conduct that looks like it violates the corporation charter, this might only result from the fact, one objects to the particular way this discretion was used.)

With strong grassroots efforts underway to secure her nomination, on August 10, AP’s Nedra Pickler offered up “Clinton to headline second night of convention,” subsequently published by both MSNBC and RealClearPolitics, portraying the Clinton and Obama ‘camps’ were negotiating to determine whether her name would formally be entered into nomination.

Clinton told supporters she is seeking a way for her delegates to be heard at the convention and be united after the hard-fought nominating contest.

“Because I know from just what I’m hearing, that there’s incredible pent up desire. And I think that people want to feel like, ‘OK, it’s a catharsis, we’re here, we did it, and then everybody get behind Sen. Obama.’ That is what most people believe is the best way to go,” she said, according to video of the remarks taken by an attendee and posted on YouTube last week.

Obama told reporters Thursday he thought the negotiations with Clinton aides had gone “seamlessly,” but he also rejected the notion that there might be a need for emotional release on the part of some Democrats.

“I don’t think we’re looking for catharsis,” said Obama. “I think what we’re looking for is energy and excitement.” Id.

Ms. Pickler’s account of the Obama and Clinton negotiations contained these lines:

Delegates are not formally pledged to any candidate so Clinton does not need to “release” them to Obama. The rules also say delegates may vote for the candidate of their choice whether or not the name of such candidate was placed in nomination. Id.

As my readers can attest, discussing these issues I struggle to view the glass as half full rather than half empty. With this optimistic life view in mind, I refuse to characterize that AP, MSNBC, and RCP reporters and editors intentionally withheld from millions of their readers the material fact, laws in 13 states do bind pledged delegates to the candidate of the voters’ choice. Instead, I will grant, they just didn’t know.

Because on August 10, I still didn’t know. But by August 13, hearing bits and pieces from here and there, I was beginning to put it together.

I heard news reports that a Clinton delegate in CO was being pressured by the state chair of the party to change her support to Obama and had hired a lawyer to deal with the situation! Now, I looked up DNC model delegate selection rules to determine whether this Clinton pledged delegate could change her mind. DNC rules tell pledged delegates to use their “good conscience” to represent the will of the voters who elected them. Viewed in this light, the state chair who was pressuring her to change her mind to Obama could be construed to be merely encouraging her to exercise her discretion in a manner consistent with how the voters feel now, and not when she was elected.

Then, I heard something about a Clinton pledged delegate from OR being pressured to change her mind notwithstanding the law in her state required her to stick to her candidate. The law? You mean, the citizens of some states have enacted laws requiring pledged delegates they elect to follow the party’s candidate into the convention?

And that’s when the stark nature of the politics hit me: since Clinton for whatever reason had suspended her campaign, her delegates were now unprotected. Obama’s people swooped into the void and were picking them off, like sheep, one by one, on their way to the convention. I knew if she was to have any chance at the nomination; those of us who supported her candidacy would have to shepherd her pledged delegates through to the nomination.

I posted my thoughts throughout the blogosphere, especially on the PUMA PAC blog, which received hundreds of thousands of hits in the days leading up to the convention.

jbjd on 08.13.08 at 3:05 am

DELEGATE VOTES AT CONVENTION

Taffy,

This is fabulous! Nice work. I know of another state – either WA or OR – because I heard this last night on riverdaughter’s radio show. (I went to riverdaughter’s site to pull up the show but was unable to access her site, while she is away.) Anyway, PUMAs from GA can contact HRC delegates from that state, to make sure they know the law in their state and ask whether the state party has pressured them to switch to BO. If GA HRC delegates have been pressured, PUMAs can propose they could write a “Cease and Desist” letter to the head of the state party, copied to the S of S, advising them to stop extorting HRC pledged delegates to violate state law by committing to switching to BO before the convention or risk being replaced at the convention.

We need to have everyone’s back, not just HRC; because everyone’s back we cover, covers her.

And this, later that day, closer to realizing the full implication of delegate poaching and thinking out loud, what to do. (You will notice that even way back then, I was eschewing the practice of turning to ’saviors’ to rescue our cause, in this case, Clinton’s nomination. Rather, I urged us, instead, to rely on ourselves.)

jbjd on 08.13.08 at 6:03 pm

GRIEVE; THEN RESUME THE MISSION

We need to have the backs of the state delegates so they can back HRC. These are ordinary people, like us. Many of them probably are here for the first time, and have been blindsided by all of this. All I want to do is empower them to stay the course. Otherwise, they will be replaced (in states where this is possible).

Unless we protect our delegates, both pledged and unpledged, that is, super, they cannot protect HRC. And if the national party wasn’t afraid she could still be the nominee, they wouldn’t be advising the state parties – I am certain this is coming from the top – to reign in HRC’s pledged delegates in their states.

The information I am providing for you is actually a step-by-step self-help manual. These are incidents of first impression. That is, nothing like this has ever happened before. So, I figured out a way to address the issue.

First, check to see whether you live in a state where state laws require pledged delegates to follow their candidates, at least through the first round of voting at the convention. (So far, we know that both GA and OR law require this.)

Then, call your state delegates pledged to HRC. These are ordinary people, just like us. Some of them are first-time office holders. They probably feel as blindsided as we do. After all, they are party members, too. The woman in CO hired a lawyer; but no one should have to hire a lawyer to protect herself from attacks by her own party.

Explain you are concerned as a Democrat, as a puma (generic), or as a citizen of the U.S.A. about what is happening to the Democratic party. If they have been pressured, take notes. Tell them you’ll get back to them. Then, come back here, and I will guide you where to go next.

(Please, keep your eyes on the prize.We don’t need a savior. Somebody mentioned Gloria Allred or Alan Dershowitz. These headline grabbers would do more to attract attention to themselves then they could ever provide help to us. Anyway, they cannot do anything for us that we cannot do for ourselves.)

“Clinton supporters debate merits of roll call vote,” a USA Today report (published on abcnews.com) on August 13 tells of a continuing divergence of views on both whether Clinton’s name will be called on the roll; and the reasons as to why.

One of those supporters is Allida Black, a George Washington University historian who said she cashed in her retirement savings to finance travel to 14 states for Clinton. Black, a Clinton delegate from Virginia, is helping circulate the nominating petition.

“This is not a spite Obama effort,” she said. “This is for Hillary to get the respect her campaign merits.” Id.

(Within days, I would confirm Virginia was one of 13 states I identified and dubbed the “vote binding states.”)

Professor Heidi Li Feldman, Georgetown Law, maintained a blog called Heidi Li’s Potpouri, a must-read on the days leading up to the convention. On August 13, she posted the copy of a nasty letter Obama’s agents had sent to Clinton pledged delegates in GA. But there was no mention that GA was a vote binding state. Now, for the first time, I looked up GA law. And there it was. In fact, the GA law not only requires pledged delegates to support their candidates at the convention but also contains an advisory opinion from the GA AG, supporting the law and explaining its intent.

I posted this information on Heidi Li where, like all other comments, it went into Moderation. Then, I began wondering just how many other states had these vote binding laws. And whether this same nasty letter that had gone out to Clinton pledged delegates in GA had gone out to her delegates in those other states, too. Later, I went back to see whether Heidi Li had posted my comment; and whether anyone from GA had responded with a comment containing references to the vote binding law in that state. By now, several comments had come through Moderation. Mine was the only comment about the binding law in GA; but in the comment posted just above me, someone identifying as a Clinton pledged delegate from NC claimed, that mean-spirited letter that had been sent to Clinton delegates in GA had also been sent to her!

I checked; party delegates are not bound by the results of the NC primary. But now, I knew Obama was ‘pressuring’ Clinton pledged delegates to switch their votes to him in states throughout the country; and that in some of these states, delegates were bound to the candidate through the laws of their state.

In my mind, agents for Obama enticing Clinton pledged delegates in vote binding states to switch their votes to him before the convention, were breaking the law!

I decided to turn them all in.

On August 14, CNN reported, “Clinton’s name to be put in nomination.” Pointing to the obvious, they let us know, “Many die-hard Clinton fans have been hoping that her name would appear on the ballot.” Id.

That same day, ABC News’ Kate Snow also reported, “Deal: Clinton’s Name Will Be Placed in Nomination at Dems Convention.” “Some details are still being worked out, but Clinton’s name will be put into nomination at the Denver convention on Wednesday.” Id. “What also hasn’t been settled yet is who will nominate Clinton and whether she will stand up with the New York delegation when they are called on.” Id. “What has been settled, however, is that after both Clinton and Obama names are placed into nomination there will be a roll call vote.” Id. “What has also been hashed out is that at some point during the convention, Clinton will release her delegates officialy (sic) to Obama and that she will make it very clear that she is voting for Obama, the source said.” Id.

Jeff Zeleny, writing for the NYTimes on August 14, announced “Clinton’s Name Will be Put in Nomination.”

(In June 2005, Mr. Zeleny, then working for the Chicago Tribune, interviewed then newly-elected U.S. Senator Barack Obama.

Obama acknowledges, with no small irony, that he benefits from his race.

If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?

When it comes to race, Obama makes his point–with subtlety (emphasis added by jbjd)

Obama liked the 2005 article so much, he posted this on his now-defunct U.S. Senate web site. http://obama.senate.gov/news/050626-when_it_comes_to_race_obama_ma/ )

Anyway, on August 14, Mr. Zeleny reported, “Clinton’s name will be placed into nomination at the Democratic National Convention, a symbolic move approved by the Obama campaign in an effort to soothe a lingering rift with Clinton supporters.” Id. “After the state-by-state roll is tallied, Mrs. Clinton is expected to turn over her cache of delegates to Senator Barack Obama.” Id.

Summing up all of these reports from ABC, CNN, and the NYTimes on August 14, the great news was, everyone has agreed, Clinton’s name will formally appear on the ballot for the nomination; there will be an open roll call vote of all state delegations from the floor of the convention; and then she will release her cache of delegates making (most of) them free to vote for Obama and endorse his nomination.

Okay. Now, I could focus entirely on maintaining her delegates up to this ‘open roll call vote of all states’ for the nomination.

That same day, I began to formulate an action plan to turn in Obama’s gang to the A’sG of the vote binding states. This became the basic set-up of the project. 1) Find all of those states where the law required pledged delegates to stick to their candidates on the floor of the convention. 2) Obtain the names and contact numbers for A’sG, S’s of S, and state party Chairs in each state. 3) Identify, if applicable, any examples of delegate harassment specific to the state. 4) Compose a letter to the state AG citing the law and the harassment, requesting intervention to stop the illegal conduct. 5) Find names and contact information for Clinton pledged delegates in the state. 6) Identify local and national media outlets. 7) Recruit citizens in the state to carry out the project.

Here’s how it eventually worked. Citizens in the state printed and signed the letters to the AG with their names and addresses. These were faxed out to state officials, and copied (with or without identifying information) to party Chairs. Then, we sent blind copies to Clinton pledged delegates – often the only contact information we could obtain was street addresses, so these copies were sent via snail mail – along with this handwritten note near the signature line: “We have your back. PUMA.” Copies were then distributed to the press.

I launched the project on the PUMA PAC blog. These are just a sample of the comments I posted on that well-read blog on one day, August 14, beginning in the wee small hours of the morning.

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 1:56 am

BO’S BC ISSUE

The bc issue isn’t ripe until after the convention, in some states, 24 hours after the convention, if he is nominated, and files nomination papers with the individual S’s of S. Blogging on other sites, I explained all this, and directed people to look for filing deadlines in their states, because the challenge window is based on these filing deadlines. Anyway, since no one can do anything about this bc situation until after the convention, please, focus on what needs to be done to secure support for HRC at the convention. And this means supporting the delegates, pledged and unpledged, to support her. This is what I am trying to do right now.

And more explanation in the ongoing formulation of my plan.

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 3:56 am

HARASSING STATE DELEGATES – PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE,

read this and then, help me do something about it! Fellow PUMAs, BO’s emissaries from Chicago are now pressuring state delegates, too; and Chairman Dean is doing nothing to stop them. Here is an example of what they are doing in GA.
http://heidilipotpourri.blogspot.com/2008/08/bearing-witness.html

Remember, GA is one of those states that requires their pledged delegates to stick by their candidates through the 2nd ballot at the convention. We have to help these pledged delegates from this not-too-subtle extortion! Who is from GA? I will check in before noon. Please, we need to contact GA pledged delegates. You can get their names from the GA S of S. Once we help delegates in one state, all of this harassment will stop. But that state has to have a state law requiring pledged delegates to stick by their candidate; and evidence of harassment.

I stressed the importance of carrying out this project (as opposed to other ‘PROWLs,’ the name for the ‘action projects’ posted daily at the top of the blog).

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 10:28 am

Texas Tigress,

Nothing sent to the head of the state party will accomplish the goal of protecting the pledged delegates inasmuch as 1) you are asking the oppressor to stop oppressing; and 2) the pledge delegate in jeopardy does not know you have her back. We have to get to the actual delegate; and she has to be willing to report the illegal conduct either through a “Cease and Desist” letter to the state party; or notice to the S of S. And everything needs to be copied to the press.

Coercing pledged delegates to violate state law is really big. (This is different from the scenario described in Heidi Li’s link, wherein Chicago is pressuring these delegates to disclose their votes in advance.) Like, if this is a DNC directed campaign to get the state parties to exert this pressure to switch allegiances, on pledged delegates who are required by law to support their candidates, we’re talking RICO-type conspiracy. This is FBI territory.

CALLING ALL GEORGIANS! (U.S.A., not former Soviet Union)

Throughout the day, I posted pointers, like this.

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 10:50 am

HOW TO IDENTIFY PLEDGED DELEGATES IN YOUR STATE

The state party is required to provide the identities of party delegates to the S of S. Call their office; these people work for you. Do not bother calling the state party; this is not worth the runaround you might get, and your resulting frustration.

Note: Pledged delegates are not super delegates.

And this.

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 12:18 pm

…

That’s why I want people in their states to contact their pledged delegates. We do not want HRC’s pledged delegates to feel they are hanging in the wind; and we have no idea how much support HRC is able to provide to them, given this present repressive situation.

If GA is getting these conference call calls then, other states must be, too. But what makes this worse in GA is that, by law, pledged delegates must support their candidates through at least the first round at the convention. That’s why I am so desperately looking for GA pumas.

I posted information on other potential vote binding states, including CA.

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 1:18 pm

CALIFORNIA PUMAS

STOPPING DELEGATE HARASSMENT

*********************************************
6201. …
(e) The California primary election is a “binding” primary.
Accordingly, delegate and alternate positions shall be allocated so
as to fairly reflect the expressed presidential or uncommitted status
of the primary voters in each district. Therefore, the national
convention delegates elected at the district level shall be allocated
in proportion to the percentage of the primary vote won in that
district by each preference…
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=64820815600+3+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
**********************************************

Before I can tell you what to do in CA, I need to know what that word “binding” means here. Call the S of S elections division (916) 657-2166.

I sought favors; can someone please contact Jeff Zeleny?

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 1:52 pm

CAN SOMEONE DO THIS FOR ME? I AM SO BUSY ON THIS BLOG TODAY I HAVEN’T EVEN … YET!

Re-visit the DNC Call to Convention and find the page about the difference between “nomination” and roll call. Then, contact Jeff Zeleny – I find him to be pretty fair – and make sure he understands the difference between being officially placed into nomination and having your name ‘nominated’ from the floor, through which process any votes cast for you would only be recorded as “present.”

And posted more pointers on the project.

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 3:50 pm

STATE DELEGATE HARASSMENT,
Implications of Letters from BO Representatives to State Pledged Delegates

As most of you already know, the principle that state pledged delegates should support their candidates at the convention is embodied in a document called
DNC Delegate Selection Rules. http://www.coloradodems.org/docs/2008DSPFinal.pdf
However, in certain states, including OR and GA, pledged delegates must, as a matter of state law, follow their candidates into the convention. So, for example, urging a pledged delegate to change her support, before the convention, is not only encouraging her to violate the spirit of the DNC Rules but also to break state law.

Any questions?

As I continued my research, I alerted readers to other vote binding states.

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 5:24 pm

PLEASE CALIFORNIA PUMAS I admire your spirit but after I looked up your laws for you, I came up with this question, which no one is answering for me: what does that word “binding” mean here? You can call the S of S elections division (916) 657-2166. This will determine how best to proceed in your state. (Each state is different, which is why I have been asking you to identify your state. ) Also, I need people in each state to SPEAK to a pledged delegate to confirm HRC pledged delegates in each state are being contacted by BO’s people in Chicago and asked – under various ploys – to identify their candidates.

http://heidilipotpourri.blogspot.com/2008/08/bearing-witness.html

I cannot help you with the letter from your state until I have the information I asked for, from your state. As they say in the movies, “Help me help you.”

Still trying to confirm CA.

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 5:44 pm

STOPPING STATE PLEDGED DELEGATE HARASSMENT

CA PUMAS and others

I need you to do these 2 things. (I cannot tell you what to do next until I have these answers. Remember, I am trying to help out in all 50 states. I am swamped.)

1. Find out from the S of S – I gave you her # – what the word “pledged” means in the law I cited. Of course we would assume that, pledged means pledged. But I want to make sure what this means; ask specifically whether pledged delegates must vote for their candidate on the first vote at the convention. And take notes. (I have been asking for this since yesterday.)

2. Call some pledged delegates and find out whether they received a letter from BO’s people in Chicago, like the one on Heidi Li’s site.
http://heidilipotpourri.blogspot.com/2008/08/bearing-witness.html

Then come back here and tell me what you found out.

And at the end of that very long day, a plea for HELP!

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 11:54 pm

HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP

Turns out, there are states out there that require pledged delegates to support their candidates through the first vote at the convention. So far, there’s OR; and GA; and IN. I need PUMAs organized by state. Now. But I cannot organize you – I am too busy researching your laws and writing state-specific letter. GA will go out, first. Tomorrow. Because the AG of GA has already written an advisory opinion explaining the intent of the law; and supporting the law. I anticipate the AG will not take too kindly to people from Chihttp://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/wp-admin/post-new.phpcago encouraging pledged delegates in his state to break the law.

Citizens of GA pouring through thousands of comments posted on the blog each day, eventually found my comments and responded with their emails. In this way, we assembled a team I began referring to as ‘my Georgians’ to carry out the project in just that one state. At the same time I was researching the laws, obtaining the contact information, and writing the letter to the AG for the next state. And communicating the state vote binding project to readers of other people’s blogs, and recruiting citizens of each state to get out the letters I had written, state by state.

The next day, August 15, Ann Kornblut reported in the Washington Post these variations on the plans for the open roll call of all states on the floor of the convention that had been reported just the previous day.

“Clinton to Get Roll-Call Vote at Nominating Convention”

How, exactly, the roll call will work remains an open question, advisers on both sides said. After having her name entered into nomination, Clinton could then ask her delegates to support Obama, bypassing the long process of reading names aloud. But several advisers said they think there will be some kind of roll call, which could begin as early as Tuesday night of the convention. (emphasis added by jbjd)

Hmmm…

My letter to the AG of GA went out that same day. Copies were distributed to the SoS, the Chair of the state D party, and hundreds of state and national media outlets.

August 15, 2008

Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General
40 Capitol Square, SW
Atlanta, GA 30334

VIA FAX: 404. 657.8733

SUBJECT: Solicitation to Violate O.C.G.A. § 21-2-196 (2008)

Dear Attorney General Baker:

Here in Georgia, pledged delegates selected as the result of votes cast for Senator Clinton in the Presidential primary election are legally required to vote for her during first-round balloting at the party’s nominating convention. OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL appended to the above-cited law explains, “This section reflects the legitimate interest of the state in insuring orderliness in the electoral process, and it provides a means of presenting the political preferences of the people of this state to a political party.” But in what can at best be interpreted as an overzealous advocacy on behalf of Senator Obama, in states throughout the country, including Georgia, proponents for his nomination have bombarded her delegates with subtle and not-so-subtle pressures to commit to switching support to him, before the convention. Or, failing that, they replace the Clinton-pledged delegate with one loyal to Obama. (See examples below. Note that while the first link shows the copy of a letter Senator Obama’s campaign sent to pledged delegates in Georgia, they distributed this same letter to delegates in all states, including states which, like Georgia,mandate pledged delegates to follow their candidates into the convention.) In Georgia, encouraging delegates entrusted with representing the political preference of Clinton voters, to pledge their support before the convention to Obama, solicits these delegates to break the law.

As a concerned citizen of Georgia, I am bringing this matter to your immediate attention anticipating that you will take appropriate action to ensure from now on, campaigning in this state related to the upcoming Democratic National Convention is consistent with Georgia laws.

Sincerely,

References: “Bearing Witness” (posting of letter from Khalil Thompson, Obama for America, Chicago) http://heidilipotpourri.blogspot.com/2008/08/bearing-witness.html

Clinton supporters protesting removal of delegate at Democratic National Convention http://www.whas11.com/news/local/stories/WHAS11_POLITICS_080814_CLINTONOBAMA.486a4d97.html

“Explain, Dems tell Clinton delegate” (article on state party efforts to discipline Colorado delegate for Clinton for refusing to switch to Obama)

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_10170139

Copy: Karen C. Handel, Secretary of State

VIA FAX: 404.651.9531

Jane V. Kidd, Chairwoman, Georgia Democratic Party
jane@georgiademocrat.org

Readers began posting states in which stories of irregularities regarding Clinton pledged delegates had been in the news.

KENDALBLUE on 08.15.08 at 12:23 am

jbjd @@@@@@@@@
a link about Kentucky delegate..clintonrules posted it.

http://clintondems.com/2008/08/clinton-supporters-protesting-removal-of-delegate-at-democratic-national-convention/

On the 15th, PA Governor Ed Rendell (D) appeared with Neil Cavuto on FOX and misinformed the viewing audience, there is no such thing as a “pledged” delegate.

jbjd 08.15.08 at 7:07 pm
ED RENDELL
(PA IS AN UNBOUND COMMONWEALTH)

You are going to have to reach PA delegates who might not know Ed Rendell does not know what he is talking about. He’s saying there’s no such thing as pledged delegates within the Democratic Party. And, since PA delegates are unbound, they don’t know that in other states, including CA (we think), delegates are bound. So they might believe all delegates will switch their votes to BO, meaning even if they wanted to vote for HRC, their votes won’t matter.

Another state confirmed.

jbjd 08.15.08 at 7:08 pm

OREGON OREGON OREGON OREGON OREGON OREGON
(you’re next)

Anyone from Oregon – Do a shoutout to other Oregonians. Have them email you and put their addresses into a group marked OR. I am going to have you send this to me. I am writing your state letter now!

Oregon is next!

And another.

jbjd 08.15.08 at 9:29 pm

HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP
**********************************************

Does anyone have any information on the OR HRC delegate being pressed to switch to BO? I can’t find this; but I heard this on the radio. Anyway, I really want to include a link in the OR letter which, otherwise, is ready to go. WHERE ARE MY OREGONIANS? I am dancing as fast as I can.

IN is next.

Here is a wonderful wrap-up from one of my Georgians of the maiden effort in the vote binding project.

antifish 08.15.08 at 10:04 pm

OK Pumas, let’s all cheer up.

Just to let you know, in concert with our fellow Puma, jbjd, we GA pumas fought back against delegate intimidation today. Jbjd wrote a wonderful letter in legalese which was faxed to our Att Gen and Sec of State. We sent copies through snail mail to all pledged delegates letting them know we have their back. I know jbjd is eager to help each of you in your states, but please realize that she must carefully research the laws of each state in order to craft the letter properly. Let’s all be patient as we fight the strong-arming and intimidation of delegates.

A reminder we are on the side of the law.

jbjd 08.15.08 at 11:02 pm

ABSOLUTELY SOMEONE SHOULD BE SETTING UP A GENERIC PROWL TO ALL STATE DELEGATES, UNPLEDGED OR PLEDGED

I am only working on pledged delegates because they are being harassed to change their minds. And I wanted to start in states whose laws require pledged delegates to follow their candidates into convention because anyone who coerces a person to break the law needs to be stopped.

CA, Nancy Pelosi’s home state is confirmed, and gearing up to go!

jbjd 08.15.08 at 11:25 pm

REMEMBER NOVEMBER

Yes; send emails to me so I can set up a folder for CA. I will have the letter ready to go out as soon as I get your email addresses. And does anyone in CA know of any additional stories of delegate harassment? I only have one example. (I also use examples from other states, though; it would be shortsighted to assume the types of harassment out there occur in only one state.)

Still trying to reach the delegates before they head out for Denver.

jbjd 08.16.08 at 12:52 am

COPIES OF THE AG LETTERS NEED TO GO TO ALL STATE DELEGATES WHO AT THIS POINT MIGHT HAVE NO IDEA WHAT’S GOING ON AND WHO NEED TO KNOW WHAT’S GOING ON BEFORE THEY LEAVE FOR DENVER

Re-read my earlier comments today about Ed Rendell’s statement on t.v. The interviewer asked whether HRC winning was now possible. ‘Delegates can vote for anyone they want. The last time they were pledged was back in 1980 at the Carter Kennedy convention.’

State delegates can be reached by snail mail. It would be great if we could get these letters out tomorrow.

On the 16th, I posted the epiphany that Obama and the DNC are rigging the nomination.

jbjd 08.16.08 at 1:16 pm

*******************************************************
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I THINK I FIGURED OUT HOW BO AND THE DNC ARE RIGGING THE NOMINATION

I posted yesterday that I saw Ed Rendell on Neil Cavuto, rejecting NC’s proposition that HRC could still win if enough delegates changed their minds, with this statement: ‘That’s not going to happen; delegates can vote for anyone they want and they will vote for BO. We haven’t had a robot rule since the 1980 Kennedy Carter convention.’ After seeing this on t.v., I began posting here to remind you PUMAs that some states require, by law, that “pledged” delegates must vote for their candidate at least through the first round of voting at the convention. I warned you the DNC was engaging in a campaign of misinformation aimed at state delegates, who may or may not know what is the law in their states, to get them to think voting for HRC would be useless. I urged you to get word to state delegates, hold your vote.

Today, I started thinking, what if “robot rule” was actually a term of art? So, I looked it up. And, sure enough, it is.
http://cassandra2004.blogspot.com/2008/02/open-convention-ted-kennedy-1980-dnc.html

And then it hit me. BO is spending this week spreading misinformation to get state delegates – not the supers – to change their votes. We have to try to stop him. Normally, this ’shepherding’ of delegates is done by the candidate; BO has been in touch with delegates in each state. But HRC cannot do this now. So we have to.

This needs to be a prowl.

On August 17, I ‘blew the whistle’ on the true nature of “pledged” delegates and the Democratic Party.

jbjd on 08.17.08 at 5:49 pm

THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT COMMENT I HAVE EVER WRITTEN OR WILL EVER WRITE ON THIS BLOG… PLEASE REFER OTHERS TO THIS COMMENT THROUGHOUT THE DAY, IN SUBSEQUENT COMMENTS… I AM BUSY WRITING YOUR STATE-SPECIFIC LETTERS TO THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL, TO BE COPIED TO OUR DEAR STATE DELEGATES PLEDGED TO HRC, TO LET THEM KNOW, WE HAVE THEIR BACKS…

**********************************************************************
DECONSTRUCTING DEMOCRACY AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

My Dear Fellow PUMAs,

If you are going crazy trying to figure out what’s happening with the Democratic Party, join the club. I’m not kidding. Join the club. Because it just hit me, the way to understand this Democratic nominating process is to think of The Democratic Party as what it is – a club. And the only thing that makes this club so special is that it was able to get permission from each of the 50 states to collect campaign contributions and put the names of the candidates it wants to hold office onto the state’s election ballot. That’s it. That’s all there is. Let me explain.

According to Party – or rather, club rules, presidential candidates are chosen at the club’s nominating convention. Afterward, the club submits the name of its candidate for POTUS to the appropriate state official in each state – usually the Secretary of State – as part of an application to get onto the state’s general election ballot, in compliance with that state’s laws. In fact, states only allow the candidate for POTUS chosen by a “major political party” to submit ballot papers so late in the game because club rules and by-laws require their candidates to be chosen at a “nominating convention.”

The club determines who will be its candidate for POTUS on the general election ballot through a vote at the convention by people it calls “delegates,” which delegates obtained that status through an allocation process set by the club. That is, the club places the names of its proposed candidates on state ballots in the primary and caucus elections and then, in exchange for receiving a specific number of votes in that process, the candidates are assigned a delegate to vote for them at the convention. Most state delegates are given a special status, called “pledged.” According to club rules, when these pledged delegates cast their votes at the convention, they should use their best judgment to represent the wishes of the voters based on whose votes they were elected. Historically, by counting these delegates pledged to each candidate, the club has usually been able to predict which of its candidates will end up with the nomination at the end of the primary and caucus process, since one candidate usually garners enough pledged delegates to surpass the number the club set as the requirement at the convention. But not this year. Neither club candidate – BO or HRC – was assigned enough delegates through the primary and caucus process to secure the nomination at the convention. Luckily, the club had in place rules whereby this deficit in delegates could be made up by special delegates commonly referred to as super delegates who get to cast their votes for either candidate at the convention.

The Democratic Party set up volumes of rules and by-laws that govern all these operations, with auspicious sounding titles like “Charter,” “Constitution,” “Model Rules to Delegate Selection Process,” and “Call to the Convention.” But here’s the thing about all these club rules: they can be changed at any time. According to club rules. So, if like me, you have read club rules and believe, as I do, that members of the club have not played fair throughout this presidential nominating process, am I saying there is nothing you can do about it? Hardly.

Remember what I said in the beginning: the state only lets the club get onto official state ballots as long as they follow state rules. And unlike club rules, when states make rules, they’re called laws. (TO BE CONTINUED…)
©jbjd

And my eventual reply to the alert about delegate harassment in KY.

jbjd on 08.18.08 at 10:22 pm

OMG…OMG…OMG…OMG…OMG…OMG…OMG…OMG…OMG

KENTUCKY IS A PLEDGED STATE! I AM ON IT… LOOK FOR IT…

And the follow-up.

jbjd on 08.19.08 at 12:55 am

caracal carrie

I am all over KY – I have the law but this letter is unique since the club actually replaced a delegate pledged to HRC with one pledged to BO, ostensibly to satisfy an affirmative action requirement in either DNC or state rules – and NH. CA, GA, IN, and OR are done. When you wake up, look for the posting.

Now I was put in touch with Ricki Lieberman, in NY, a muckity-muck in the Democratic Party everyone else seemed to know about but me. Here is how she was described on Huffington Post a few weeks earlier, in July.

Also a former Clinton “Hillraiser” (meaning she raised more than $100,000 for the campaign), Lieberman is keeping her own private hope alive with a daily email blast to supporters, entitled “Electability Watch,” which features a cascade of negative articles and other items about Obama as a means to argue that superdelegates should change their minds in Denver and crown Clinton the nominee instead.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/16/clinton-distances-herself_n_113094.html

Ricki printed my work on vote binding states in her now-infamous newsletter, “Electability Watch.”

I was also put in touch with a reporter from the LATimes. I did my best to inspire him to write a story, describing the unlawful attempts made by agents acting for Obama to coerce delegates pledged to Clinton in vote binding states to switch their votes to him. He just wasn’t interested.

On the morning of August 21, 2008, this article on Georgia Politics Unfiltered proved, our campaign to stop pledged delegate harassment had worked in GA. (Perhaps not coincidentally, GA was the only state in which I had been able to recruit a team of volunteers to carry out all of the steps of the project, including sending a copy of the AG’s letter to the delegates along with a note saying, “We have your back.”)

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Attorney General Tells GA Delegates They Can’t Switch Their Vote At The Convention

I’ve confirmed with two members of the state’s Democratic National Convention delegation that Attorney General Thurbert Baker sent them a letter informing them that they could not switch their vote to another presidential candidate if they are a pledged delegate to someone else.

Two delegates pledged to New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Shannon Marietta of Dougherty County and Cheryl Williams of Gwinnett County, both said they received a letter from the Attorney General stating that they could not switch their vote until Sen. Clinton released them or she received less than 35% of the vote during the roll call vote.

The Attorney General’s letter cites an relatively unknown section of Georgia’s presidential preference primary law that states Any person selected as a delegate or delegate alternate to such national convention shall file a qualification oath with the Secretary of State pledging support at the convention to the candidate of their political party or body for the office of President of the United States for whom they are selected to support. The oath shall state that the delegate or delegate alternate affirms to support such candidate until the candidate is either nominated by such convention or receives less than 35 percent of the votes for nomination by such convention during any balloting, or until the candidate releases the delegates from such pledge. No delegate shall be required to vote for such candidate after two convention nominating ballots have been completed. [Source: Official Code of Georgia Annotated 21-2-196]

Both Clinton delegates said they planned on voting for New York’s junior Senator on the first ballot anyway.

I’m currently working on getting a copy of the letter.

http://georgiaunfiltered.blogspot.com/2008/08/attorney-general-tells-ga-delegates.html

Ricki also contacted Alegre’s Corner, another PUMA blog, to post the work on her site, and recruit citizens from these states to download their state letters and send to the identified recipients. That night, Alegre’s Corner had joined the vote binding state campaign.

http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/diary/717/

By August 23, everyone is listening.

jbjd on 08.23.08 at 11:37 am

OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG

Howard Wolfson, staunch HRC supporter and formerly with her campaign, has been a pundit for FOX since some time after HRC suspended her campaign. He just announced (remote) to Cavuto, some states have laws that require delegates to vote for HRC.
Cavuto: ‘You mean even if HRC releases her delegates, they still have to vote for her?’
Wolfson: ‘Yes.’

WOW! WOW! WOW! As most of you know, finding these laws and getting out the word is what I have been working on! Isn’t this great news?

The next day, August 24, the day before the opening day of the convention, CNN, HuffingtonPost, FOXNews, and NYDailyNews, among others, attributing different sources, announced for the first time that Clinton would release her delegates at a luncheon on Wednesday afternoon, before the first open call of the roll of all delegates from all states on the floor of the convention. They also announced the DNC had lifted all sanctions against FL and MI – Clinton won both states, neither one of which is a vote binding state – giving them full votes at the convention.

Still left intact since its announcement 10 days earlier, on August 14th, was the plan to hold an open roll call vote of all delegates from all states on the floor of the convention.

But would that plan still be in place at the start of the convention?

(Next: Part 3: The Coup at the Convention)

Two prominent members of the House of Representatives, Charlie Rangel, and Maxine Waters, are both facing a number of Ethics charges. Both are fighting these charges, and Rep. Waters has also intimated these charges are based on race, not any wrong doing on her part. Yeah. Okay.

I am sure it will not surprise you to learn that when the shoe was on the other foot, a Republican being charged with Ethics charges some time ago, Waters was all too ready to pile on.

Now the shoe is on the other foot, as Bill Hemmer discusses with NPR and Fox contributor, Juan Williams in this clip below:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

So, Rep. Rangel made a 37-minute long speech about his mistreatment by the House. Oh, woe is me, right Charlie? I thought Stephen Hayes made some good points about Rep. Rangel in the discussion below near the end:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

Sorry, Charlie, many of us are not buying what you are selling, especially in terms of that half a million…

Well, I reckon we’ll see soon enough what will come of these two trials, though Rangel is right – don’t leave him swinging in the wind. Put him on trial now, or expel him. Go for it. Any day now.

As for the race card Rep. Waters has used, and will be using, I think we all knew that was going to happen during one (or both) of these trials. So, when I happened to catch the following Larry Wilmore segment on Rangel and Waters with on The Daily Show, I was laughing my, um, head, off:

Hilarious, right? I thought so. The race card has been maxed out. Oh, if only that was true…

Consider this an Open Thread. Discuss this or anything else going on.

/ Bumped Up /

UPDATE: Two of them, actually. Since I am in my hometown after having seen my orthopaedist, and have to get something from my mom’s house (now my brother’s house), I have this on the jobs front. This came in on Friday, to add to the high Unemployment filings for the last week of July. There was a decline of jobs by 131,000 to add to this already disappointing (to put it mildly) news. I don’t quite understand how this keeps Unemployment steady at 9.5% since the numbers keep hovering close to half a million, but that’s just me.

And then, there is this headline regarding Michelle’s European vacation: Spanish Police Close Public Beach For Michelle Obama’s (Almost $400,000) Spanish Holiday (sorry – couldn’t find the pound sign while my 6 yr old grandnephew is jumping around). Oh, this is some story, with LOTS of photos and details, except how many aides Michelle actually has. Why can no one get that number? There’s a ton of security with her, too, as you might imagine, which costs each and everyone of us our taxpaying dollars. Gee – and you wonder why Andrea Tantaros refers to her as a “modern day Marie Antoinette…”

_________________________________________________

Original of “Must Be Nice To Jet Around On Someone Else’s Dime”: That would be Michelle Obama, of course. She and her daughter, Sasha, are currently in Spain. With plenty of their closest friends, enough to fill 60+ rooms at a swanky resort on the Mediterranean Coast.

If only this was her first vacation of the summer, and we weren’t footing the damn airfare for Michelle, her daughter, staff, and security. But that is exactly what we are doing as Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun Times wrote in her recent article, “Michelle Obama Could Face ‘Appearance’ Issue Over Luxury Vacation.” Uh, yeah, you could say that:

First lady Michelle Obama may catch some flak for vacationing at an expensive luxury hotel on Spain’s Mediterranean coast. By the end of the summer, Mrs. Obama will have taken eight vacation trips — including her visit to Marbella, staying at the five-star Hotel Villa Padierna with daughter Sasha and some pals. {snip}

Mrs. Obama’s U.S. Air Force jet landed at Malaga on Wednesday; she skipped celebrating her husband’s 49th birthday with him. (Daughter Malia, 12, is at overnight camp.) Mrs. Obama pays for personal expenses — as do her friends who arrived on their own — but that only covers a small part of the expense. Taxpayers pick up the tab for staff and security at the exclusive hotel and most of the expenses for the plane.
(more...)

Hey, you just might. I admit, I was surprised to see that I agreed with at least one opinion of theirs. But I did. Turns out, the JournoListers hate Keith Olbermann, too! I know, right??

Now, I have said before I used to love the guy, DVR’ed him every night. But, once he started with the raging misogyny against Hillary Clinton, even defending David Schuster for calling Chelsea a whore and Hillary a pimp, I knew I could not stomach him anymore. But then again, I wasn’t an Obama sycophant like the vast majority of the JournoListers are, and Olbermann is. So imagine my surprise when I read that was one of the reasons they hate him, too:

[snip] At issue was a segment Olbermann had run about Carrie Prejean, the former Miss California who stirred debate in 2009 when she defended traditional marriage.

Following the segment, the subject on Journolist was “I hate Keith Olbermann again,” and the members of the list let it rip.

The Nation’s Katha Pollitt began the group’s rant. “He and Michael Musto did this whole long riff about beauty contestant Carrie ‘opposite marriage’ Prejean’s breast implants, stupidity, breast implants, tacky clothes, earrings, breast implants. They went on and on about how she was ‘part plastic’ and pathetic. You’d think they were celibate vegans who spent their lives zen meditating. It was just a whole TV humiliation of her, and it made me feel sorry for her, which wasn’t easy,” Pollitt said.

Michael O’Hare, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said the segment was “about as funny as a rubber crutch. Odd when a reasonable person’s internal alarm doesn’t go off in a situation like that …’I’m going to ridicule a girl who’s obviously at her personal limits just trying to look conventionally pretty on national TV? What does that make me’?”

O’Hare even suggested friends stage an intervention for Olbermann. “If anyone on the list is a friend of Olbermann, friendship demands that you give him a head-up about this lapse,” he said.

Julian Zelizer, a Princeton professor and CNN contributor, said Olbermann’s root problem is his misogyny. “I can’t take him anytime. I think to write off his mysogyny (sic) as limited to Musto is just not accurate. That very much defined much of how he talked about Clinton as well as others.”

Zelizer was referring to a series of instances during the primary campaign between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama when critics from both sides of the aisle criticized Olbermann for allegedly sexist treatment towards Hillary. Olbermann was forced to apologize. [snip]

Click here to read the rest.

Incredible, isn’t it? A number of these folks really get it about Olbermann, and his blatant misogyny. No one was more surprised than I was, especially given the level of misogyny leveled at Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin by many on the left.

But still, Olbermann had some supporters, like David Roberts, who appreciated his getting out the liberal news to the masses, so there is that. But that is not so surprising.

And while I am on the whole JournoList thing again, Tucker Carlson, the Editor in Chief of Daily Caller has written a follow-up letter to address the expose of Journolist. He writes about the two arguments currently being used to justify what these journalists did, and some claims that they are making. Specifically, he wrote:

[snip]The response hasn’t been all that furious, actually, probably because there isn’t much for the exposed members of Journolist to say. We caught them. They’re ashamed. The wise ones are waiting for the tempest to pass.

There have, however, been two lines of argument that we probably ought to respond to, if only because they may harden into received wisdom if we don’t. The first is that our pieces have proved only that liberal journalists have liberal views, and that’s hardly news.

To be clear: We’re not contesting the right of anyone, journalist or not, to have political opinions. (I, for one, have made a pretty good living expressing mine.) What we object to is partisanship, which is by its nature dishonest, a species of intellectual corruption. Again and again, we discovered members of Journolist working to coordinate talking points on behalf of Democratic politicians, principally Barack Obama. That is not journalism, and those who engage in it are not journalists. They should stop pretending to be. The news organizations they work for should stop pretending, too.

The second line of attack we’ve encountered since we began the series is familiar to anyone who has ever published a piece whose subject didn’t like the finished product: “You quoted me out of context!”

The short answer is, no we didn’t. I edited the first four stories myself, and I can say that our reporter Jonathan Strong is as meticulous and fair as anyone I have worked with. [snip]

Click here to read the rest of the letter by Carlson.

I recommend reading the entire series at Daily Caller. It is certainly informative, though the piece about Keith Olbermann cannot help but make me smile. He SO deserves to receive this disdain by some of the very elite of whom he seems to count himself. Teehee! It couldn’t have happened to a more deserving fellow. To quote Jeremiah Wright, “the chickens have come home to roost!”

And how.

/ Bumped up /

We knew this was happening – we knew that many in the MSM were protecting Obama, were refusing to vet him, to investigate allegations against him, or those with whom he was very close, like Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

But here’s the thing. A number of these journalists (and academics), including from major news outlets, wrote down their plans to do what they could to protect Obama, both in the Primaries, and in the General Election. And did they ever. Check out this interview with Tucker Carlson (I know, I know – he was horrible to Hillary Clinton, but he does acknowledge that these “journalists” worked against her, too). It is eye opening:

We knew it – we knew they were using the race card to help Obama, and to protect him from scrutiny. And use it they did, over and over, and over again. They STILL are using it, for that matter.

But wait, there’s more. In this report, more of the actual statements by some of the so-called journalists who colluded to help Obama are brought to light:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

And finally, and I bet you knew this was coming, these “journalists” are revealed to have coordinated attacks against Sarah Palin:

Daily Caller has much, much more on this topic, with more revelations each day, it seems (I am having some technical issues with my computer, so please forgive the lack of links to the actual stories).

I used to scoff at the charges of the “liberal bias” in the media. I thought they were ridiculous, sour grapes, and all of that. But this isn’t just bias, this is intentionally controlling news about one candidate, protecting a candidate from being properly vetted, and using a despicable tactic to deflect any questions, the race card. Despicable.

These people are not journalists, not by a long shot. Each and every one of them should lose their jobs over this. They shaped an entire election by their collusion, engaging in character assassinations, race baiting, and propaganda, to protect their chosen politician.

And they wonder why people in this country have lost faith in the media. After this revelation, they should wonder no more…

It is amazing what comes out from under the rug once it has been pulled back. Recently, DOJ attorney, J. Christian Adams exposed the DOJ’s dismissal of blatant voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party. It has been a staggering expose of what is going on inside the Justice Department, especially in terms of voter intimidation and the lackadaisical approach the DOJ is taking to protect our right to vote free of fear or threat of intimidation. The short answer is, they are not, certainly in terms of the New Black Panther Party.

My favorite part of the dismissal against the NBPP in Philadelphia? The guy carrying the nightstick outside a Philly polling place has been banned from carrying “deadly” weapons near polling places. Until 2012. You read that right. He can’t carry deadly weapons around a polling place in 2010, but he can when it’s time for Obama to run again. WHAT a surprise.

The Obama Justice Department has become the “Get Out of Jail Free” Department for the New Black Panther Party.

But another piece of dirt coming out from under this rug of DOJ whistle blowing is something about which a number of us knew for some time. The threats of intimidation and violence toward Hillary Clinton supporters during the 2008 Primaries. The constant refrain that Obama ran a better campaign than Clinton is absurd, unless you think threatening people, lying, and cheating is “running a better campaign.” Personally, I do not, especially from the party to which I gave my loyalty for decades. I dunno, I kinda have a thing against liars, cheats, and thugs – maybe it comes from my vocation. Ahem.

At long, long, last, some in the media are finally paying attention. The documentary filmmaker, Gigi Gaston, was on Fox and Friends recently, speaking out about the corruption associated with the 2008 Democratic Primaries. Her film, “We Will Not Be Silenced 2008″ is a critical piece of history regarding how Obama and the DNC colluded against Hillary Clinton and the 18 million of us who voted for her. Below is Ms. Gaston speaking out about what she found:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

I was like Gaston, too. A lifelong Democrat, who believed in the Party and for what it stood. I believed that we really did care about one person, one vote, that we cared about the will of the people. I could not have been more wrong, which I now acknowledge, though it was a painful – check that – excruciatingly painful realization.

The worst part was seeing the level of organization behind Obama’s cheating and voter intimidation. And yes, it most definitely came from the top. There is no way on this green earth that what happened in Texas COULD happen without an organized, concerted effort. Others in states like Washington also spoke of the caucus fraud that occurred there, the busloads of people from out of state coming in to vote. There is zero way this could have happened without Obama’s knowledge or acquiescence. No way. That speaks volumes about him, though not news to many of us, I am sure.

And it speaks volumes about the DNC, which received plenty of evidence that this was going on. The Hillary Clinton Campaign also notified the DNC of irregularities occurring to benefit Obama. And what did the DNC do about it? Absolutely nothing. Well, actually, they did do something – they violated the will of the people, acted in the most unethical, immoral way, dismissing the votes of Americans, and stole votes from Clinton to give to Obama.

Many of you know I have recommended Ms. Gaston’s documentary before. It is staggering, maddening, and downright heartbreaking. I recommend this video to you again. It is well worth watching, so that we will be aware, forewarned is forearmed, and clearly, with this president, with this “Justice Department,” prepared is what we must be.

To get you started, here is Part 1:

One last thing: if you or someone you know, experienced caucus fraud during the 2008 Primary, please, please let the good folks at “We Will Not Be Silenced 2008” know about it. They are still working to get this information out there, to expose the massive level of fraud perpetrated to get Barack Obama into the White House.

How have we come to this place in this country so fast?

You may recall that there was quite the upset in SC during the recent primaries in which an unemployed man who did no campaigning, had no real policy platform, had no campaign website, and had no campaign funds, beat out his competitor, an elected official. By a lot, I might add. Greene won with 60% of the vote. Oh, yes.

My representative, Jim Clyburn, pitched a hissy fit, insisting that the Republicans were behind Mr. Greene’s candidacy and filing fee. He claimed voter fraud was responsible for the vote through faulty voting machines. The SC State Democrats tried to throw out the election results (who cares about those pesky votes anyway? We already know the Dems don’t after 2008.). They failed in their attempts, and now it seems Mr. Greene’s funds came from the US Government and the State of South Carolina:

[snip] State law enforcement officials wrapped up an investigation of Greene’s finances after questions were raised about how he could qualify for indigent defense and afford to pay more than $10,000 to seek the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate.

Greene’s surprise June 8 upset victory over former circuit judge Vic Rawl initially caused many to speculate Republican operatives had secretly bankrolled Greene’s primary entry fee to sabotage the primary. Rawl’s defeat left Greene the Democratic challenger to U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.

The source of Greene’s money is none other than the U.S. government and the S.C. state government, said SLED director Reggie Lloyd.

“That’s who bankrolled Greene’s entry fee for the primary,” said Lloyd, whose agency worked with 5th Circuit Solicitor Barney Giese in the investigation. “The U.S. government and the state of South Carolina funded his filing fee.” [snip]

Yes, all of the funds have been accounted for after a thorough investigation:

[snip] Last October, Greene received a $5,843 check from the U.S. Department of Defense in connection with his discharge from the military last year.

“That brought him up to more than $8,200,” Lloyd said.

Greene continued having a checking account balance of about that amount into March, when Greene received a federal income tax refund of $2,173 and a state tax refund of $932, Lloyd said.

“At that point, he had more than $11,400 in his account,” Lloyd said.

Greene was also getting a $1,100 monthly unemployment check, Lloyd said. Since Greene lived with his father and had few expenses other than “haircuts and groceries,” his unemployment check was another source of government income for the discharged veteran, Lloyd said.[snip]

In other words, you and I bankrolled Alvin Green’s filing fee. Hooray for us! Ahem.

I am so sure that a sincere apology to the State Republicans is forthcoming from Rep. Clyburn immediately. Ahahahahahaha. Just kidding.

Now that the funding from Greene’s filing fee has been identified, with no malfeasance on his part, I can now turn to one of his brilliant ideas for job creation. Since Obama has been so busy suing one of the 50 states instead of, oh, working to create jobs, for instance, perhaps Obama could use this idea from Alvin Greene.

And that idea for job creation is – are you sitting down? Crafting action figures of Greene. I am not kidding you. Seriously. He said this. Out loud:

[snip] “Another thing we can do for jobs is make toys of me, especially for the holidays,” Greene said in the article. “Little dolls. Me. Like maybe little action dolls. Me in an Army uniform, Air Force uniform, and me in my suit.”

“That’s something that would create jobs,” Greene continued. “So you see I think out of the box like that. It’s not something a typical person would bring up.” [snip]

Well, I have to give Greene that – this is NOT something a “typical” person would consider. Creating jobs by having action figures made of themselves. Yikes. Though I have to say, I am pretty surprised that Obama has not considered this as a “Works Project.” I mean, the man has already written two autobiographies, so clearly, he thinks pretty highly of himself (my recently departed mother said she couldn’t get through his first one – she thought it was incredibly boring. That from a woman who was a voracious reader and who always finished any book she was reading. Except Obama’s. Telling, that.) Having an “action figure” seems right up Obama’s alley. Just saying. I can’t believe Alvin Greene beat him to it.

That, friends, is the kind of “thinkificating” of the newest Democratic candidate for US Senate from the Palmetto State. Never mind that no one would BUY the damn things, so how the workers making them would be paid is still a mystery. But Mr. Greene has not exactly come off as a Mensa candidate in his interviews anyway (or on his new website). No matter how hard the State Democrats worked, no matter how many (false) allegations they levied, and no matter how much they tried to overturn the will of the people, even if they had no idea for whom they were voting (his name was listed first), Alvin Greene IS the Democratic candidate for US Senator from SC.

You just can’t make this stuff up.

That’s what SC State Senator Robert Ford is claiming is the reason for his recent loss to Vincent Sheheen to be the Democratic candidate for Governor. If you can stand any more about our, um, interesting politicians in South Carolina, in this eyebrow raising article, Ford lays it all out Ford Admits To Being Bitter; ‘Uncle Tom … still alive,’ defeated candidate says..

I think the headline says it all, but just so you understand, it wasn’t his fault he lost. It’s all those damn Uncle Toms and racists to blame:

State Sen. Robert Ford said “Uncle Tom” is part of the reason he lost his bid for governor.

Ford, a black civil rights crusader who has served Charleston in the Senate since 1993, told The Post and Courier on Friday that his fellow Legislative Black Caucus members turned their backs on him and instead supported his white opponent, Vincent Sheheen.

“Uncle Tom was alive and well before, during and after the Negro and African-American struggle in this country, and obviously he is still alive today,” Ford wrote in a June 10 letter addressed to his “beloved Legislative Black Caucus members.”

Uncle Tom is a term used in contempt of blacks who are regarded as slaves to whites. It comes from the 1852 book “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.”

Ford acknowledged that he is “bitter,” but he said that does not change the situation. He accused Sheheen, a state senator from Camden, of not supporting diversity because, Ford said, Sheheen does not have any black men or women employed at his law office.

“The reason I am hurting right now is not because I lost,” Ford said. “It’s because they supported a candidate who doesn’t practice diversity.”

Sheheen’s campaign on Friday had no comment on the letter or Ford’s comments.

Wow. Well, good for Sheheen for not ratcheting up this claim with a response. Though honestly, any attempt at a response automatically puts Sheheen on the defensive. But Sheheen didn’t have to respond:

State Sen. Darrell Jackson, a Hopkins Democrat who is black, said Ford is wrong about Sheheen.

“Robert is one of my dearest friends,” Jackson said. “He is absolutely wrong and off basis with this. And I think he knows that. I think right now Robert is hurt and he said he is bitter.”

Jackson said Ford and Sheheen have chosen to share an office in the Senate office building. If Ford’s claims about Sheheen were true, the two wouldn’t share their workspace, Jackson said.

He also noted that Ford and Sheheen have a black administrative assistant. Sheheen also has selected a consulting firm run by a black man to work for his gubernatorial campaign, Jackson said. Also, Jackson said, Sheheen told him that he does not do the hiring at his law firm.

Jackson also said that every major piece of legislation that influences minorities in the state has Sheheen’s support.

“It’s not fair to Vincent,” Jackson said. “I love Robert, but I really have to speak up.”

Despite his hurt feelings, Ford said he “loves” Sheheen and believes he is a “good person.”

“I am going to work like hell to see to it that he wins,” Ford said.

Ford’s accusations come as South Carolina grapples with another racially charged situation.

Sen. Jake Knotts, R-West Columbia, called GOP front-runner Nikki Haley a “raghead,” a slur against her Indian-American decent. The Lexington Republican Party met Thursday night and voted to censure Knotts and ask him to resign.

Haley, a state representative from Lexington, faces U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett in a runoff for the Republican gubernatorial nomination June 22.

Sheheen won the Democratic nomination for governor Tuesday with 59 percent of the vote. Ford garnered 18 percent and ran on a controversial platform of bringing back video poker and building a casino in Myrtle Beach.

The third Democratic candidate, Jim Rex, state superintendent of education, took 23 percent of the vote. (Reach Yvonne Wenger at ywenger@postandcourier.com.)

Damn right it isn’t fair to Sheheen to be labeled this way because Ford has “hurt feelings.” Lucky for Sheheen he has an African-American office mate and colleague who is willing to speak up against this charge. Otherwise, it would be a label hung on Sheheen’s neck he did nothing to deserve except beat Ford in a political race.

I respect what Ford did in his past, the work he did on behalf of Civil Rights. That is no small thing. When someone who has no experience, no qualifications, did no campaigning, and has little more of a platform than, “Get South Carolinians Back to Work,” as in Alvin Greene, beat out a white guy who has been in office, it is hard to use the race card (as noted by a commenter). Ford came in dead last. That means the voters didn’t really buy what he was selling.

Grow up, Ford – take your hits like an adult already. You ran, you lost. Now try and be a role model for graciousness in losing, not modeling the petulance and dirty tricks of the Whiner in Chief. It is beyond tiresome and unbecoming. It is just sad.

I stopped reading Leonard Pitts during the 2008 Primary Selection. I couldn’t take his unquestioning support of All Things Obama. Not very appealing from someone whose columns I used to read with regularity for their thoughtfulness and attention to facts. Those qualities disappeared seemingly overnight.

So, imagine my surprise when reading my morning newspaper to see a column by Pitts about Sarah Palin that wasn’t completely negative. I admit, I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop as he discussed her new neighbor. Sure, there were some snide comments, and a few digs at her and those who support her, but overall, for someone who had been such an Obama-phile, it was pretty, well, nice. Don’t take my word for it, though. Here is his recent column on Sarah Palin and ‘Stalker’ Next Door:

There goes the neighborhood.

We do not know if that was Sarah Palin’s initial response to the news that a journalist writing a book about her had rented the house next to hers in Wasilla, Alaska. But who could blame her if it was?

As it is, the response Palin did share on Facebook seems tellingly uneven, as if Joe McGinniss’ decision to move in next door had knocked her off her game. One moment, she’s chirping with trademark insouciance about how she might bake him a blueberry pie to welcome him to the neighborhood. The next, she is talking about raising the fence between her house and his.

In the same Facebook posting, Palin also suggested, with smarmy innuendo, that from his new home, the author could see into her daughter’s bedroom. Palin did not explain why he would wish to do so.

McGinniss’ move has stirred controversy beyond Wasilla. A posting on Slate.com strongly defended his “immersion” journalism. At the other end of the opinion spectrum, the author has received death threats from angry Palin fans. Among McGinniss’ more hinged critics, the word “creepy” gets used a lot. Even in defending him, the piece on Slate.com likened him to a stalker.

Uh, yeah – I think “creepy” applies to this guy, don’t you? Shoot, even he seems to think so:

For his part, McGinniss told NBC’s Today show that “Creepy is as creepy does” — whatever that means — and portrayed his decision to rent the house next door as coincidental. He needed to live in Wasilla for the summer while doing his research, it was a great house at a great price and it just happened to be next door to the woman he is writing about.

If ever there is a Museum of Disingenuous Explanations, that one will deserve its own wing. And here, let us stipulate three things:

One, McGinniss is pulling an obvious stunt that ultimately benefits both parties: it helps him sell books, it helps her sell herself as a victim of the “lamestream” media.

Two, McGinniss is perfectly within his rights to rent this house — or any other he desires.

Three, Palin is, of her own doing, a public figure and as such, must accept intense, even intrusive media scrutiny.

But even stipulating all that, it’s hard to be sanguine about the uncomfortable nearness McGinniss has foisted upon his subject. Not that you can’t understand why he’d want to write about her. Palin is, second only to the president himself, the most compelling figure in American politics — and the most polarizing. For some, she is the folksy, straight-talkin’ avatar of conservative principles, while for others, she is the leader of an intellectually incoherent movement that has no idea where it’s going but seems in a hurry to get there.

Perhaps there is a rule for liberals of which I am unaware that requires, should one say anything neutral or even the least bit decent, some sort of put down of her, and those who actually like her. Just saying. Pitts continues:

Under neither interpretation, however, does she forfeit her humanity or her right to expect that she will be treated with basic human decency. And stalking another person — sorry, but when even your friends call you a stalker, you’re a stalker — violates that expectation. This is not immersion nor even intrusion. This is invasion.

Unfortunately, invasion has become the media’s default means of covering the rich and famous. Ask Brad Pitt, Sandra Bullock, Tom Cruise. They all enjoy the mixed blessing of being celebrities in an era where lines of propriety have been all but erased and too close is never close enough — an era where you are never out of camera range and folks seem to think themselves entitled to your deepest feelings, failings, secrets and fears, as if public people had no right to private lives. Indeed, if I were Pitt, Bullock or Cruise, I’d make offers on the houses next to mine just in case McGinniss has given somebody ideas.

We have, many of us, chosen to forget this, but the mere fact of being well known does not make an individual abstract or theoretical, nor does it absolve us of the obligation to treat them as we’d wish to be treated. People have the right to live peaceably and privately within their own walls.

Even Sarah Palin.

See what I mean? Generally decent toward Palin in the face of her stalker living next door (and I concur – if one’s own friends refer to you as a stalker, well, it’s probably true). Pitts is right, too – “even” Sarah Palin deserves some privacy from a creep like McGinniss.

And even Palin deserves to have the press treat her like a real person and not a caricature from time to time. Glad to see Pitts starting to emerge from the Hopium haze. There may be hope yet…

Everyone is entitled to his or her own, different point of view.

Some may say this first video belongs out there with the folks who think we let 9/11 happen so we could go to war or that we knew the Emperor was planning an attack on Pearl Harbor. But the performance is solid.

The next one – I don’t know if I would give Helen a ten for danceability for this, but it is her point of view.

Most folks can agree that everyone is entitled to their opinions and, just like the terminal portion of the large intestine, almost everyone has one.

Con the World? The Greatest Bluff of All? Or go back to Europe, Helen – or wherever your bloody family came from generations ago. Abandon reason. The truth will never find its way to your TV.

Here is another view: ..the blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal.

We are. Therefore we think.. that understanding this event, the events leading to this event and the cascading events that may follow is a little more complicated than knowing where at the waist to bow. Grownups, who don’t have to count to ten before farting from the mouth, need to deliberate before punk politicians junk shoot this event into another holocaust. The Final Solution Charles talks about above is just that. That is his point of view.

Knee Jerk, both. Oh, yea. Float your mouse over the red Obama.