Posted on

The Obamacratic Party

Yesterday, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee decided to throw out all the rules and give Obama votes he never received and delegates he never earned. In short, the DNC made the Supreme Court look like chumps in the disenfranchisement game.

This really should not come as any surprise. Obama’s whole intent of taking his name off the ballot was to disenfranchise the voters of Michigan. In Obama’s style of Chicago politics he would rather disenfranchise 600,000 voters that give Hillary a win in Michigan. None of this should come too much of a surprise. In order to win his Illinois state senate seat he abused ballot access laws by knocking all of his opponents off the ballot. If that is not voter disenfranchisement I don’t know what is. This past primary season the Obama machine denied voters all across Illinois the right to vote. When voters asked for a Green Party ballot the Obama machine, hid the ballots, threw them away, said they had run out, and denied there were such ballots.

Yesterday, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee decided to give the voters of Michigan and Florida half a vote. This is far less than full voting rights and even less than the 3/5 th of a vote we look back at with historical shame. In Obama like fashion he sees this as a gift, or a concession as his campaign referred to it. Not only does Obama disenfranchise voters, he demands they be grateful for it.

At least with Florida you can argue there is some proportional relationship between votes and delegates. True, it is not equitable, but neither has been the delegate process as a whole. Hillary, for example, has had to get over 1000 more votes per delegate than Obama.

Michigan was another matter entirely. In seating Michigan at half strength they violated the DNC Charter, one person, one vote, and stole votes from one candidate to give to another. The DNC Charter is rather specific on the principle of fair reflection. The allotment of delegates should fairly reflect the will of the people. Giving Obama votes he never won and delegates he never earned is a direct violation of fair reflection.

Even Hillary was willing to compromise on this point with giving Obama the delegates from uncommitted. This of course was not good enough for the Obama machine, they not only wanted the uncommitted votes they never earned, but also the delegates that Hillary won. In short, they stole votes from the primary election that voters in their sacred trust gave to Hillary Clinton, and in all their wisdom granted them to The One.

What was this wisdom that they used. If you asked Donna Brazile, we should give as much or more weight to those who didn’t vote than those who did. So, using the Donna method, before we certify an election we ought to entertain the wishes of those who did not vote. Another aspect of this DNC wisdom was exit polling. Now, it is not enough that so many people voted for x, and so many for y, but we need a committee of 30 in all their wisdom interpreting what we really meant using the most recent polling software. Lastly, in all their wisdom they decided that the 30,000 write ins that could not be opened should be given to Obama.

Please explain to me by any stretch of the imagination, how this is democratic. It isn’t, which is why henceforth, these enemies of democracy, should be referred to as Obamacrats. It looks like the Obamacrats are going to get their wish of a full fight in the credentials committee at the Democratic Convention. Who knows, maybe that will get me to watch the Obamacratic Convention.


4 responses to “The Obamacratic Party

  1. huntingdonpost ⋅

    Obama very cleverly played the game, refusing to participate in a revote in Michigan. I hope the MI and FL superdelegates let him have it–as in going with Hillary Clinton all the way. I cannot believe the party wants to run this loser against McCain. Even if by some unbelievable miracle he became POTUS, what will happen to the country?

    The DNC just imploded.

  2. The last time the Democrats went with a candidate who did not win the popular vote was McGovern.

    Howard Dean had the audacity to state that Hillary was the only candidate on the ballot. That’s a 100% lie, there were 4 candidates on the ballot. What I am convinced of now is that Dean had his hands in this disenfranchisement from the beginning.

  3. folkbum

    Obama’s whole intent of taking his name off the ballot was to disenfranchise the voters of Michigan.
    Obama took his name off the ballot because both he and Clinton signed a pledge not to participate in a vote that was not sanctioned by the DNC.

    Clinton is not winning the popular vote, either, unless you decide not to count the totals in four caucus states (all of which Obama won) that do not report turnout numbers, even though those numbers can be estimated. And unless you presume that none of the 237,762 voters in Michigan who selected “Uncommitted” wanted to vote for Obama, and unless you throw out (as Michigan did) all the ballots with Obama’s name as a write-in.

    The party gets to write its own rules for nominating its own candidate. If you don’t like it, then why don’t you leave the party? Oh, wait, you’re not in our party to begin with. Then why do you care?

  4. True, but there was no requirement to pull ones name off the ballot. He did so, only to clip Hillary at the knees and to disenfranchise Michigan voters. Check Dkos, and both Edwards and Obama’s arguments at the time, they took their names off for one reason only and that was to deny Hillary a win and the voters a choice. Spin it how you may, it was voter disenfranchisement, no diiferent than when he took all competitors off the ballot in Chicago to win the state Senate seat.

    Including the caucuses, Clinton is winning the popular vote. And yes it does not include the uncommitted. It also does not include Hillary or Edwards votes, that how it works in a democracy. Obama did not have any votes as a write in, so please stop spreading lies. That was the insanity of the DNC’s undemocratic decision, they gave votes to Obama he never received, write ins that were never opened, and if that was not enough credit for votes never taken.

    Yes, the party gets to write its own rules, but I thought the argument from your side was “mama says, don’t change the rules in the middle of the game”. Not only were the rules changed but the foundation of fair reflection was turned on its head. The DNC decided that it, not the voters are the ultimate counters of the vote. Don’t worry there is no way in hell I’ll be voting for Obama. Yes, it true, I along with 95% of the American public am not a card carrying member of the Obamacon Party.

    I love it, if you are a member of the Democrat Party, get the hell out, if your not shut the fuck up. Now, its making sense, that what’s Obama means by unity.

Comments are closed.