Monday, August 4, 2008


Obama's announcement of wanting Florida and Michigan delegates to have full voting rights is the act of a desperate man. Both he and the DNC know the Democratic nominee whoever that may be, cannot win the Presidency without Florida and Michigan.

Given all that happened in those states, and Obama's attempts at silencing those voters it's not likely anyone isn't going to see through Obama's ploy and why he's doing it.

Florida and Michigan were one of the earliest examples of how dishonest, two faced underhanded and fraudulent Obama can be, when he claimed in speeches that he stood for "voices being heard" and "every vote must count", and then clamped his hand over the mouths of almost 3 million voters in Florida and Michigan because he didn't like what those voices were saying, which was a loud "go home". And in all likelihood are still saying "go home and will continue to say it. Clinton beat him by landslide numbers in both states and this little act of political self preservation isn't going to fool anyone. Anyone, even an Obama supporter can see it's nothing more than another cynical political ploy to try and win back voters who were disgusted with him a long time ago because he needs them now.

I wrote more than a month ago that when it came to winning Florida, a state the Democrats almost certainly have to win, Fidel Castro had a better chance of winning than Obama and that is still true. His motive for asking the DNC credentials committee who, by the way, can now be found under Obama's bus, to restore the full seating of Florida and Michigan delegates is obviously Obama's attempt to try and do something about his collapsing poll numbers which have to be giving super delegates who declared for him concerns that Obama can't win. This is Obama's attempt to try and restore some faith in his eroding candidacy before the convention. It probably won't work. When a ship starts to sink there isn't much anyone can do to make it unsink. All anyone can do is jump ship. Including the rats.

What remains to be seen is whether Obama really means what he says, even if he is trying to bolster his eroding support or, like everything else, is one more fraud, one more try at suckering people into believing one thing when he intends something else.

What exactly does "restoring full voting rights" really mean to the candidate who was for the DC gun ban a year ago, but claimed he was never for it when the Supreme Court struck it down? Or the candidate who said he was a new kind of politician who would run for President with public financing until he reneged, or the candidate who said he would filibuster the FISA bill if it had retroactive immunity and then didn't, and was against off shore drilling until he was for it?

"Restoring full voting rights" can have only one plain meaning to the inhabitants of the planet Earth but Obama may have another meaning.Or try and pull one out of Jeremiah Wright's hat.

But the only plain meaning is this: the results of both primaries stand exactly as per their original results. And this means a number of important things. It means that Obama forgoes the 55 delegates he was awarded in the Michigan compromise that he didn't earn. It means that Clinton is returned the 4 delegates she did earn and that was taken from her. And it means the 19 net delegates Clinton won in Florida but were taken away by the DNC are restored.

Given all that, the math is now that Obama goes into the convention with only a 59 delegate lead over Clinton. Given that Clinton is the popular vote winner and that over 850 of Obama's delegates were won in states where he lost to Clinton by landslide margins and suspect caucuses, no super delegate can reasonably respect a 59 delegate lead out of 4200 as being representative of either the will of the people or the strength to win a general election. Especially when all the evidence is to the contrary.

Regardless of what Obama might pretend he "really" meant sometime in the future, this is the only true meaning of restoring "full voting rights". And a 59 delegate Obama lead is the practical effect of counting all the delegates in Florida and Michigan. Which makes the Disassociated Press' assertion yesterday in their story about restoring those voting rights that "Obama has clinched the nomination" not only ignorant of Democratic Party rules and factually incorrect, but, like Obama, maybe whistling past the graveyard.


Anonymous said...

thanks again for a wonderfully insightful post. But, doesn't Obama also have to ask to have the delegates seated because he "promised" they would be at some point in the past as long as it wouldn't effect the outcome? Something to that effect. So, what happens with that? There must be some deal somewhere with someones to ensure that the delegate count doesn't shift from where it is right now. Would he risk it, otherwise?


Double Jointed Fingers said...

Excellent post. Thanks for putting it all down in such a clear fashion. Maybe we should mail this to all the TV stations so they had finally figure out what is really going on.

Anonymous said...

This must have been agreed with Mrs. Clinton, kind of a lame effort to help the party down the road in confusing almost everybody.

This said, I agree with your analysis, particularly your next to the last paragraph.


suef4hil said...

this looks like BO posturing and media seeking attention. I will be on the phone w/ the DNC tomorrow and start my e-mail barrage to the RBC in the morning.

muchas gracias Marc for the continued insight, clarity and prompt delievries!

minty said...

It is too little too late for Obama and I am not sure that Hillary Clinton wants to jump in at this point and clean up the mess. I have allot of respect for Senator Clinton and her abilities, but I am not sure she could even pull this one out of the toilet.

There is a "rumor" that Obama will pick Bayh as a running mate. I do believe this is in effect that he has run out of electoral map and now needs Indiana for the win. However, McCain would then need to pick up either PA or MI to get the presidency. Obama did not do well enough in the rural areas to take PA in the general as an easy win. Kerry barely won PA in 2004 and didn't insult anyone who lives there.

democraticjack said...

Great insight Marc.
I am afraid this is more smoke than fire given Obama and the DNC's trustworthiness.
"Or try and pull one out of Jeremiah Wright's hat."
Hat is not where I think he will try to salvage this sorry attempt at schmoozing the guileless public from. Unless Wright is sitting on his hat.

Jean said...

This is what The Nation says:

"But the delegates will not be voting for Clinton, as this is all about putting the pieces in place for Obama's nomination by acclamation. (Clinton is telling bitter-ender supporters in behind-closed-doors meetings: "Look, what we want to have happen is for Senator Obama to be nominated by a unified convention of Democrats...) "
Anybody talked to Hillary?

Anonymous said...

Excellent -- and absolutely correct -- analysis! This should be required reading for every Democratic delegate and superdelegate. Has it been e-mailed or faxed to them, and to Sen. Clinton? Thank you!

Robert Nelson said...

My initial feeling is that it would be totally uncharacteristic of Obama's M.O. to give away anything he doesn't have to. He does this only because he is absolutely certain it doesn't imperil his nomination. Either he has no intention of letting Hillary's name be placed in nomination, or is for some reason completely confident of his hold on the Super Delegates. But perhaps his arrogance is making him over confident. If the delegate petition gathers enough signatures and Hillary doesn't decline it, things could get interesting.

Mirlo said...

We all know he didn't do it or any other reason than to benefit himself. I am just not sure how it would be favorable to him at this point. But I am very suspicious that there is something to it we do not know.

glennmcgahee said...

But within days of Hillary suspending her campaign, Obama's staff was down here in Florida purging her delegates and replacing them with his personal selections. I thought it strange at the time and wondered how it was possible. Now I realize why they were doing this. They couldn't take the chance on us being represented as we voted.

susan h said...

Thanks Marc, this is so important an issue. PUMA PAC blogs have reported that some Super-delegates have been bought by Obama money and even list who they are, so the "fix" is solidly in place. The following is from an article by John Solomon of the Washington Post dated November 30,2007 "Obama Campaign Worker Discussed PAC Donations", ...Obama's Hopefund Inc. distributed more than $180,000 in donations to political groups and candidates in the early presidential voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and S. Carolina, and more than $150,000 to federal candidates in other states with primary dates through mid-February.

I certainly hope that FL and MI voters see through this charade.

sharmajee said...

Obama campaign machine rolls on one calculated step at a time. That, as stated by others here, original delegate lists were purged and replaced by loyalists, that many delegates from disticts won by Hillary have received generous Hope Funds, that the fix at Denver has been pre-set - back in May I was furious, in June I was livid, now I am plain nauseous.

Now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of the country. Our political process has fallen victim to serious manipulation devoid of honor, integrity or respect.

Delegates, set aside petty party politicking, and do what is good for country as a whole. That's what the voters will be doing in November?

Anonymous said...

Marc, he has done a deal with Steven Geller to drop his lawsuit. This is the only reason why he has agreed to it.

info said...


I would like to introduce you to the new website dedicated to supporting Hillary Clinton for President. It's called "NO CLINTON, NO PARTY".

Happy blogging!


Anonymous said...

Check this out ev1
Does this sound familiar

This will be considered off-topic — but it isn’t. I thought I’d share this letter which was sent to the Editor of the Times-Dispatch by a gentlemen who escaped Cuba in the 1960’s. His words come from the experience of believing in someone, without taking the time to know who they really are, and the consequences that followed:

Subject: Celebration

From Richmond Times-Dispatch, Monday, July 7, 2008

Dear Editor, Times-Dispatch:

Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice. On June 30 I celebrate my independence day, and on July 4, I celebrate America ’s. This year is special, because it marks the 40th anniversary of my independence.

On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba, and a few months later, I was in the United States to stay. That I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.

I’ve thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there. In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, so when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.

When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said, ‘Praise the Lord.’ And when the young leader said, ‘I will be for change and I’ ll bring you change,’ everone yelled, ‘Viva Fidel!’

But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner’s guns went silent, the people’s guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education, it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented, Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over, more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans. And now I’m back to the beginning of my story.

Luckily, we in America would never fall for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America ?

Would we?

Manuel Alvarez, JR.
posted by
Kathleen | 08.06.08 - 2:48 pm | #


bethtopaz said...

I wanted to pass along this comment I found on Amazon - on the readers' reviews of the newly released book, The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate by David Freddoso:

By Andrew J. Rodriguez

After reading the book I realized it is the kind of writing that people either ferociously agree with its message or hate the author for undermining someone whose qualifications make him worthy of being elected president of the most powerful nation on Earth.
I am not going to agree with either side. All I wish to express as a former Cuban exile, is that Barack Obama and Fidel Castro share many personality traits, ie:
Both were abandoned by their fathers at an early age.
Both are charming, elocuent lawyers that say exactly what people want to hear at the right time and place.
One never led the nation to suspect he was a communist at heart, the other doesnt mention the word socialism when in reality this is exactly what his agenda stands for.
Neither Obama nor Fidel ever held a real job either in government or in private enterprise for they think of themselves as demigods unworthy of soiling their hands when their destiny is much larger than their own realities.
Both were virtually unknown until they began to use the word "change" as their main political motto.
Both have egos as tall as the twin towers, yet they manage to present themselves humbly, one in soiled military fatigues and the other sweating and with an undone tie.
Both have the unique ability to distort truth and lies as if they were the same.
Both have the ability to hypnotize the ignorant and fool the wishful thinker and to divide a nation in classes, (divide and you shall win) In Fidel's case he divided the rich against the poor, the illiterate against the educated and the black against the white.
In Obama's case even if by omission, he's de-facto dividing the races already.
Another resemblance between Obama and Fidel and one that shall never be forgotten is that the American media supported the "Twentieth Century Latin American Liberator" (Time Magazine) with the same degree of irresponsibility devoted to Barack Obama today.
And lastly I'll use the words of Jorge Santayana to finish my case in point: "Those who can't remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
And in the words of Sir Winston Churchill: "The inherent vice of Capitalism is the unequal distribution of blessings, the inherent vice of Socialism is the equal distribution of misery.
Signed: Andrew J. Rodriguez, Author of "Adios, Havana," a memoir. Permalink | Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)

tessa said...

"Restoring full voting rights" in this case means exactly what? As you say, in actuality it means BO is now ahead by 50 some delegates. But is that really how this will play out? Given the record of Sen Obama and the DNC up to now I cant imagine this will play out as it should. There will be some fabricated "loophole". I am so tired of all this. As I said in a previous post, all this feels like the Apartheid Government's gerrymandering and manipulative election shenanigans I fought against for many years before immigrating to the USA.

Sarah Ferguson said...

Hi Marc. There seems to be some confusion among Clinton delegates of whether they need Hillary's permission to sign a petition to put Hillary's name in nomination. I believe that the recent NYT article on the Palo Alto video states that all Hillary needs is 300 signatures and a written request from her to put her name in nomination. At the end of the Palo Alto video, Hillary says clearly, the delegates do not need her permission for any organized action. I guess my question is, is the Obama camp threatening to strip Hillary delegates of their status if they sign a petition using some bogus claim that delegates need her permission before signing?

Anonymous said...

With Michigan and Florida seated, Obama leads by
59 delegates? Funny. Isn't that exactly the number of delegates the RBC assigned to him for Michigan on May 31?


MR said...

"With Michigan and Florida seated, Obama leads by 59 delegates?"

Actually when you deduct the 55 he was given in Michigan,give Clinton the 4 she was stripped of, and give back the 19 Clinton lost in Fla Obama's delegate lead is only 49 -- 1711 to 1662.

Anonymous said...

I am from Michigan and the reason Obama made his announcement that he wanted to include Michigan and Florida came Just days before Michigan was to hold it's August 5 primary for Sstate and Congressional represenatives. He knew the voters would be reminded that HE stood in the way of a redo that we could have scheduled for this primany since the convention would come after the vote and a redo was possible if not for the Obama ruling the DNC. He wanted the voters to think "OK our first vote will count so it wasn't necessary to revote in the August primary". He didn't want them to blame him for not having the redo. He is not holding up well here and as Marc and Heidi have pointed out --This guy is tricky--so he timed the announcement that he wanted the original votes to count so people would not hold him responsible for not having a vote here. How can he make a request that results in the DNC changing the rules? Michigan and Florida will stay the way the rules committee already split them up, he just didn't want the heat.

Also I got a Newsletter from the Michigan Democratic Party that show a poll taken July 13-15 by EPIC-MRA showed Obama at 43% and McCain at 41% with a margin of error of 4%. This, a year that the Democrats should have a cake walk. We are flooded with Obama ads. To make my point the poll also shows that Michigan Sen Carl Levin Has 58% verses 32% for his Republican rival. Other Democrats doing well as well.

Pass this blog on to show Marc and Heidi's point that this guy will try any trick. Lets see if he can get the original votes counted or if now there will be no more talk about it since the primary chance has passed now.

Tie this into the super-delegates being bought.