Obama’s Dual Citizenship Disaster: an Overview [Update]

Posted on NOQUARTER By TexasDarling
Email: susanunpc@gmail.com
Site: http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com

Update: This post consists of theories based on extensive research. It would be nice if the candidate himself answered some straightforward questions about his background, and produced a valid birth certificate.

Since the story broke late Saturday that Barack Obama’s real Birth Certificate, now in Republican hands, has the name Barry Soetoro and not Barack Obama, as we predicted a couple of weeks ago, I notice that many people are still confused about the implications of dual citizenship for Obama.

The matter is somewhat complex, so I’ve decided to try to provide a summary, with the help of resident expert “Judah Benjamin.” More...

Indonesian Connection

Soetoro is the name on Obama’s Birth Certificate (BC) because a new BC was issued when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, his step-father. His original BC, which we assume was issued for Barack Hussein Obama at birth, would have been sealed at the time of the adoption.

Barry Soetoro probably acquired Indonesian citizenship in approximately 1965-1966, and may still hold it. He possibly changed his legal name back to Barack Hussein Obama as an older child, teenager, or adult, possibly never did — but even if he did, this procedure would not result in a change to the BC. (If he never legally changed his name back, I imagine his current name on the Presidential ballot would be invalid.)

The Birth Certificate published by Obama on his campaign website (still there, by the way) and distributed to the media was forged because the real BC on file is in the name Soetoro, an identity he apparently wanted to hide from the American people.

I am getting reports from different sources that Obama traveled to Pakistan in ‘81 with an Indonesian passport.

Prior to 2007 (and possibly earlier), Indonesian law did not permit dual citizenship. Thus, if Obama actively kept his Indonesian citizenship, his US citizenship could be challenged.

I suspect that Obama may have dumped his Indonesian citizenship at some point along the way, to advance his political career. But I would not be shocked if he still holds it. This question, however, should not overshadow the serious problem of hiding his Indonesian identity from the electorate.

Kenyan Citizenship

I personally doubt that Obama holds Kenyan citizenship. If he did, he could be stripped of his US citizenship under US law.

Barack Hussein Obama probably was a citizen of the British Crown (first two years of his life) and, effective 1963, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of his father’s nationality.

Under the Constitution of Kenya, he would have automatically forfeited his citizenship at the age of 21 unless he affirmatively “claimed” it. If he took some action to keep his citizenship, that’s a big problem because 1) Kenya prohibits dual citizenship and 2) the US does not recognize dual citizenship with Kenya. Further under the Kenyan Constitution, given his circumstances, he could only have kept Kenyan Citizenship, if he had it, by means of a Ministerial, Prime Ministerial, or Presidential Decree. (Of course, Raila Odinga is Prime Minister of Kenya and Odinga’s father, Oginga Odinga, was Vice President of Kenya and Barack Hussein Obama, Sr, was a close ally of the older Odinga.)

If Obama retained his Kenyan citizenship and helped campaign for his cousin Odinga, that is especially problematic under Title 8 of the U.S. Code, the relevant language of which is:

a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—

(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years…

Again, I don’t think that Obama has Kenyan citizenship. I think that the Rocky Mountain report and Andy Martin’s work are poorly sourced on this point. I sometimes get the impression that Kenya serves as a diversion from the REAL PROBLEM, which is his Indonesian connection. It would be shocking to get actual confirmation of current Kenyan citizenship.
Electability & Eligibility Issues

These revelations raise several troubling issues for Obama’s electability and eligibility.

Foremost, there is the concerted attempt to cover up his Indonesian background and dual citizenship/identity from the electorate.

Secondly, there is a potential Constitutional problem with a POTUS having held dual citizenship, and Obama knows it; thus, the deception.

The “natural-born” clause of Article II is commonly understood to relate to the place of birth, but more accurately relates to loyalty to country as Commander in Chief. That was the original intent of the founding fathers. In McCain’s case, there is no question because of his circumstances (born on military base to 2 US citizens, later joined the military, never had anything to do with Panama, etc.). In Obama’s case, it’s not nearly so clear, especially given his travels, relatives, and associations in some of these other countries.

In my mind, however, the biggest problem is that Sen. Obama has intentionally concealed his background, Indonesian identity, citizenship, and the fact that he was at one time Muslim.

What else is he hiding?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credit must be given to Judah Benjamin, historian and former journalist, who has provided ground-breaking research on the factual and legal issues related to Obama’s Indonesian connection and dual citizenship; to Polarik for breaking the story of the COLB forgery; to Techdude for his analysis (currently incomplete); to Dr. Kate for her tireless research efforts; to Michele, for bringing us a new COLB; to JimJ for his courage; to the No Quarter team for endless support; and to all the other writers and readers dedicated to the truth.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

READ these previous stories for more background information (in reverse chronological order):

Letter to New York Secretary of State by Michtell Langbert

ACT NOW: Contact Hawaii Attorney General by TexasDarlin

Eligibility Challenge, State-by-State: ACT NOW by Dr. Kate

Obama: The Forged COLB and a New Mystery by Judah Benjamin

Obama: A Disaster Waiting to Happen, Legal Challenges Imminent? by Judah Benjamin

Obama Hides Indonesian Identity, Fake Birth Certificate Explained by TexasDarlin

Birth Certificate: Obama, Soetoro, or Dunham by TexasDarlin

The Paper Trail: Obama’s Indonesia Background by Judah Benjamin

Obama the Indonesian: ‘Citizen of the World’? by TexasDarlin

Divided Loyalties: Obama’s Eligibility Problem, Part 2 by Judah Benjamin

Divided Loyalties: Obama’s Eligibility Problem, Part 1 by Judah Benjamin

Obama’s Birth — Questions Remain by TexasDarlin

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISCLAIMER/COPYRIGHT: This article presents draft and preliminary opinions, viewpoints and information, all of which is subject to change. It is intended to be strictly theoretical and hypothetical, in an effort to examine and vet the background, qualifications, and eligibility for U.S. President of a serious candidate and public figure who is standing for that office. The assertions made herein are believed to be true by the author based on good-faith efforts to research the facts related to a public figure running for public office. In the event that documentation deemed to be reliable by the author comes to the author’s attention disproving one or more of the assertions made herein, corrections will be published.

Nothing herein should be quoted, cited, copied, or otherwise used or shared in whole or part without providing a link to the original source on the No Quarter or TexasDarlin blog, and acknowledging the author, TexasDarlin, which is a pseudonym. Nothing in this article should be used in a way that misrepresents the author’s meanings.

Cross posted from my blog, TexasDarlin

Voter Registration Is the New Battleground

By COREY DADE and JOHN D. MCKINNON
August 12, 2008; Page A4

As Barack Obama tries to draw hundreds of thousands of new voters to the polls, Republicans are beginning to scrutinize registrants' eligibility as both sides draw a major battle line over voting rights.

Republicans are moving to examine surges in voter registrations in some states. A Republican lawyers group held a national training session on election law over the weekend that included campaign attorneys for Sen. John McCain and other Republican leaders. One session discussed how party operatives can identify and respond to instances of voter fraud. More...

Republicans said they are particularly worried about prospects for fraud in Virginia and Pennsylvania, and are beginning to comb thousands of new registrations in those states for ineligible applicants. In some cases the huge numbers threaten to swamp their efforts -- and those of state and local governments to verify and process applications.

Election officials in Virginia and other states say there is no evidence of widespread fraud so far. Numerous studies have found fraud and other voting irregularities in past elections to be infrequent and generally not prevalent enough to influence the outcomes of most contests. Some Republican lawyers say that despite the huge numbers of new registrations in some areas, this year's problems could be fewer compared to prior years, because of improved procedures and tougher rules.

Obama campaign general counsel Bob Bauer last Tuesday said in a memorandum to campaign supporters that their own voter legal defense operation is under way, earlier than those of previous Democratic campaigns, including legal counsel on the ground in 50 states. The campaign is working closely with the Democratic Party, which said it has spent three years building a voter-protection program that includes more than 18 paid staff and 7,000 lawyers. The personnel deployed Aug. 1 and are dealing directly with local elections officials.

In just about every election, understaffed polling sites, malfunctioning voting machines and outdated voter data are reported. Such bureaucratic problems often are rolled into the divide between Democrats and Republicans over who should vote and how -- a battle that has become more intense since the 2000 Florida recount.

Traditionally, Democrats favor fewer checks on verification and greater access to voting to encourage larger turnouts, particularly among lower-income and minority voters, who tend to favor Democrats. Republicans usually push for closer monitoring, in such forms as laws with strict requirements for voters to present identification, which can result in lower turnout.

The nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice, which monitors elections, projects registrations this year will surpass the total from any previous single election year, building on momentum from the record 20 million registrations for the combined election cycles of 2004 and 2006. Newcomers helped drive turnouts for the Democratic primaries, which drew roughly 19.5 million more voters than in 2004, according to the Democratic National Committee.

"State elections systems have shown signs of stress, and there's a serious concern that they won't be able to handle the number of voters," said Wendy Weiser at the Brennan Center.

In Pennsylvania, where improper registrations have been a problem in past elections, state officials say rolls have increased by about 230,000, to 8.4 million, since the 2006 midterm elections. Some observers believe the large increase could invite more potential for voter-fraud problems, said Lawrence Tabas, general counsel of the state Republican Party. "When you get so many new registrations like that at record numbers...it's very difficult for people to monitor the validity of it," he said.

The Republican secretary of state in Alabama has asked the Justice Department to investigate claims and monitor polling sites on Election Day. On the Republican National Committee's Web site, an interactive U.S. map is used to track recent fraud allegations, proven or not, in a number of states. An RNC official said the Web page was launched in August 2007 and is compiled using news articles.

The efforts are on a collision course with those of Sen. Obama, whose strategy hinges on the success of efforts to boost the number of first-time voters, particularly among African-Americans, and people under the age of 30.

Other efforts are aimed at registering new voters around the country. In the largest effort, Project Vote and Acorn, a community organizing group, are teaming up with the aim of registering 1.2 million people nationally by Labor Day.

Project Vote's executive director, Michael Slater, acknowledged occasional problems with voter registrations, but said that many are the result of poor record keeping. He said a greater risk comes from Republicans' efforts to police the rolls. "We don't have a real history in the last 10 to 15 years of large-scale voter fraud," he said. "What we do have a problem with is getting everyone on the rolls and making sure their votes are counted."

Sen. McCain's campaign is keeping distance from rank-and-file Republicans' efforts to police the new registrations. "State and local parties have the primary responsibility for monitoring local voter registration and identifying problems," Trevor Potter, the campaign's general counsel, said in a written statement provided to The Wall Street Journal in response to questions. But, he added, "Our view is that advance monitoring of legal developments can avoid real legal problems later on -- especially on Election Day."

The St. Louis weekend training session, held annually by the National Republican Lawyers Association, featured a session on voter fraud and possible Republican responses. The panel included Sen. McCain's Election Day coordinator, Michael Roman, as well as Foley & Lardner lawyer Cleta Mitchell, a vocal critic of Democratic-allied groups' efforts to fight what many Republicans regard as necessary ballot-integrity safeguards.

Ms. Mitchell warned about what she regards as a long pattern of abuses in registration by groups such as Acorn and their Democratic allies. "We're all for getting people involved in the process...and getting them to the polls," she said in an interview later. "What we're not for is registering fake people at fake addresses, and creating barriers to trying to identify voter fraud where it exists, which is everywhere. It's a growing problem, because of the professional vote-fraud denier industry."

She urged lawyers working on behalf of state and local party groups and campaigns to monitor new registrations. She also pointed out that Sen. Obama himself -- in his past life as a community organizer -- was "involved" with some of the groups that have been responsible for abuses in recent years.

Obama campaign spokesman Corey Ealons said, "Then, as now with his national campaign for the president, Barack Obama has always worked to inspire individuals to exercise their right to vote. He sees that as a key to his victory this fall."

Years before he took elected office in Chicago, Sen. Obama ran Project Vote's operation there. This year Acorn's political action committee, which the organization said is entirely separate from its voter-registration operation, has endorsed Sen. Obama's campaign. The Obama campaign has said it doesn't accept financial contributions from the PACs of interest groups that both register voters and endorse candidates.

Write to Corey Dade at corey.dade@wsj.com and John D. McKinnon at john.mckinnon@wsj.com

Will Obama Fight the Health Care Fight?

By Marie Cocco

WASHINGTON -- Before the energy-price crisis, before the mortgage crisis, before the credit crisis and the banking crisis, there was the crisis in health insurance that is in reality a crisis in care.

This crisis has deepened in recent years as the number of uninsured has climbed and out-of-pocket costs for those still with insurance have soared. It has become common knowledge that a serious illness -- even among those with insurance -- can plunge families into bankruptcy. Though "problems paying for gas" topped the financial challenges people listed in the most recent Kaiser Family Foundation health tracking poll, "problems paying for health care and health insurance" ranked third -- just behind job concerns but well ahead of paying for food, dealing with credit card debt and paying the mortgage. More...

So it is downright shocking that there was a tussle over what the 2008 Democratic platform would say about the party's generations-long, bedrock commitment to health care for all Americans. In short, presumptive nominee Barack Obama did not draft a statement keeping that pledge. He presented instead his plan as one that would provide "access to" affordable and comprehensive health care. A coalition of liberal activists and Hillary Clinton supporters managed to negotiate a change so that the platform says the party is "united behind a commitment that every American man, woman and child be guaranteed to have affordable, comprehensive health care." Inclusion of the word "guaranteed" was the crucial point.

On the surface, this may look like a victory for Clinton supporters or even for the far larger group -- that is, millions of Democrats -- who have long believed that the promise of guaranteed, universal health care is a fundamental principle of their party. I am less certain, and it's not because I know that politicians can discard party platforms faster than they rid themselves of scandal-tainted donors.

It is because Obama did not campaign during the primaries on a plan that would achieve universal coverage, and indeed, excoriated Clinton for her proposal to mandate that everyone have it. In fact, even some of those involved in achieving the small health-care victory take little solace from it. "I'm not sure that Obama will actually pursue the same kind of idea that we had inserted in the platform," says Donna Smith, who lobbied the platform panel as a member of Progressive Democrats of America. "I think we will have to pursue our congressional representatives to bring legislation forward."

Smith is not a Clinton delegate, or even a convention delegate. She and her husband Larry were featured in the Michael Moore film "Sicko" because they were forced into bankruptcy and lost their home trying to pay the out-of-pocket costs stemming from her treatment for uterine cancer and his for heart disease. "Our purpose was not to attack the party," says Smith, who says she wants Obama to be elected and describes herself and her husband as "good and loyal Democrats." But certain lines have to be drawn.

"To say you're going to provide affordable coverage to people is not the same as giving them health care," she says. "Just because you have insurance coverage does not guarantee you access to the care that you and your doctor decide you need. And people with insurance understand that."

Most Democrats do, too.

In 1992, the party's platform said everyone should have "universal" access to health care "not as a privilege, but as a right." In 1996, a party chastened after the collapse of President Bill Clinton's health care initiative nonetheless committed itself to "ensuring that Americans have access to affordable, high-quality health care." In 2000, the platform noted that "for 50 years, the Democratic Party has been engaged in a battle to provide the kind of health care a great nation owes its people." In 2004, the platform said this: "We believe that health care is a right and not a privilege."

Securing that right is as important now as it was four, or even 50, years ago. When gas prices recede, when the housing market stabilizes and fears of imminent job losses ebb, there will still be an unconscionable gap between the glory of American medical science and the ability of millions of people to get the most basic care.

Obama avoided an intra-party brawl over the health platform. The unanswerable question is whether he will be as determined, as president, to take on the much larger -- and excruciatingly harder -- health-care fight.
mariecocco@washpost.com

By the way, here's McCain's healthcare plan: "We want a system of health care in which everyone can afford and acquire the treatment and preventative care they need. Health care should be available to all and not limited by where you work or how much you make. Families should be in charge of their health care dollars and have more control over care." Sound similar?

Democratic Party Collapses into “stiff-arm” politics

**************************************************************
One Patriot wrote the letter below to the governor – please follow suit then gently very gently Please encourage the delegates, (email within) to have the courage to stand up for democracy! We now have the opportunity – we caught the Dem’s red handed strong arming these delegates– and we should take this to the press. Please take this information and go viral with it NOW! Be gentle with these Delegates they have been strong and need our appreciation and our support !!!!!! More...

These are not superdelegates these are the elected delegates committed to Hillary. They are being pressured not to sign a petition allowing Hillary to have her name placed in nomination during roll call just as many before her have in the past! We need 300 and could easily fall short. Rendell is trying to stop the Democratic process in PA! Tell Rendell this is wrong and support the Delegates for standing strong
**************************************************************

From: “Rachel A. Moore” <rachel@padems.com>

To: akessler@wolfblock.com ; barbzs@yahoo.com ; bcooper@wcupa.edu ; bdonahower@yahoo.com ; bradkop@yahoo.com ; burnsjb@co.washington.pa.us ; butkovitz1118@msn.com ; cacooke42@gmail.com ; carolf126@comcast.net ; cgeorge@pahouse.net ; cod3699@cup.edu ; colleen@burketts.org ; connie.slye@gmail.com ; cottage82@gmail.com ; cparker@pahouse.net ; d.fillman@afscme13.org ; d.kinross@verizon.net ; Dan.Onorato@alleghenycounty.us ; DauphinDemsDiane@comcast.net ; dbarnes@montcopa.org ; debra4303@comcast.net ; dfrankel@pahouse.net ; dhart@bacweb.org ; dscott@dc47.org ; dtive@tivelobbying.com ; edsdc85@yahoo.com ; erafalkomcnulty@comcast.net ; glawrence@lowey.com ; gnealh@gmail.com ; greg.scott2@gmail.com ; gregoryhold12@hotmail.com ; guridy@aol.com ; guys@bedford.net ; hendrce8@yahoo.com ; herrlk@embarqmail.com ; hizzonr@msn.com ; hkinser@wojdak.com ; hratner@verizon.net ; igolfwt@aol.com ; infosundaysun@yahoo.com ; j.tait@afscme13.org ; jamesrsheppard@gmail.com ; jardini@alltel.net ; jjordan@pft.org ; jjsnyder@windstream.net ; jlynch@mercyhurst.edu ; jmhoeffel@comcast.net ; joeknox@comcast.net ; jsellers@lu19.com ; jsinnott@erie.pa.us ; jtarka1293@aol.com ; jtesterman@psea.org ; kkcampbell@local108rwdsu.org ; klborski@comcast.net ; lam@millesq.com ; leslie.k.carter@phila.gov ; lfarinella1421@hotmail.com ; litz@mbcomp.com ; lmcleaish@psea.org ; lorrib433@aol.com ; maa@hangley.com ; mal@ekmelaw.com ; maria.q.sanchez@phila.gov ; mariaciuf22@aol.com ; marjorie@sas.upenn.edu ; mbtasco@aol.com ; mbuflaw@netzero.com ; mcdermo427@aol.com ; mcrossey@psea.org ; mdivecchio@eriecountygov.org ; mibbutters@yahoo.com ; michelebortner@comcast.net ; mxg2@psu.edu ; nicknewe12@aol.com ; npmills@comcast.net ; pastorquann@bbcforchrist.org ; peggygrove@comcast.net ; pgiding@philaflcio.org ; psjanvey@aol.com ; rjsestak@sestakforcongress.com ; rlw@patreasury.org ; Rob@robhop.com ; roie929@aol.com ; rovnerr@dial-law.com ; rubyehusband@verizon.net; chw307@comcast.net; hratner@verizon.net







Dear Clinton Delegates,



Please see the following memo from Mary Isenhour, Executive Director. Should you have questions or concerns, do not hesitate to contact us at the number below.



Thank you,



Rachel Moore



Rachel A. Moore, Office Director

Pennsylvania Democratic Party

300 North 2nd Street, 8th Floor

Harrisburg, PA 17101

ofc. 717.920.8470 / fax 717.901.7829



TO: All Clinton Delegates

FROM: Mary Isenhour Executive Director

DATE: August 11, 2008

RE: Nomination

If anyone approaches you about signing a petition to place Senator Clinton’s name in nomination at the Democratic National Convention, the Governor has asked me to ask you to refrain from signing such a petition until we know what Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have worked out. As always, please feel free to let me know if you have any questions.

**************************************************************
Governor Rendell,

I am very disappointed in you and the position you’ve taken to squelch the democratic process that our forefathers fought so hard to establish. Your action to ask democratic delegates to suppress the support for the presidential candidate they were elected to support is regrettable. I don’t understand why the Democratic Party wouldn’t let the process work and insist on nomination prior to finalization of the process. The Democratic national convention was established to nominate a presidential candidate through the voice of the people, the people of this great nation. I certainly hope it was not established to “stiff-arm” people to nominate a candidate, not of their choice or the choice of the people. Otherwise, we’ve become like so many other nations in the world that pretend to have democratic process, but the choices are made by the elite few. And the process sometimes ends in acts of violence to make sure their candidate of choice is elected, as in the recent past in Pakistan.



It’s good that John Adams, Jefferson Davis and Benjamin Franklin didn’t follow the party line; otherwise we would still be under the rule of the Queen of England. But then they were leaders not followers and thank goodness for that. You should have insisted that this nominating process continue to finalization at the Democratic National Convention, instead of bending to the party line.



I personally am frustrated with this entire process of counting some peoples votes and not others, popular vote in some states and caucus’ in others, six months of primary campaigns and when its your turn to vote only two candidates remain in the pool, and now “arm twisting” at the Democratic National Convention. I thought America was an example to the world in free elections and just electoral processes, but maybe I am mistaken.



Thanks,

David

PA Voter Related to a Delegate

Backers want Clinton nominated at convention

Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer
Tuesday, August 12, 2008

(08-11) 21:08 PDT --

A determined crowd of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's delegates - preparing to head to the Democratic Party's national convention in Denver - have begun gathering signatures to ensure her name is placed into nomination, insisting their effort won't take spotlight off presumed Democratic nominee Barack Obama. More...

Many of those involved in the campaign, which they say is a matter of respect and acknowledgement of 18 million voters who backed Clinton, argue that the nomination of the New York senator is a matter of historic and political precedent at such party conventions. And they're chafing at reports that the campaign of the Illinois senator is resisting the efforts - and even hoping to avoid a roll-call vote.

"Since 1884, we've had a roll-call vote. ... It's a nominating convention, not a coronation," said Garry Mauro, the four-term Texas land commissioner and past gubernatorial candidate who ran against George W. Bush - and who will go to his 10th Democratic national convention this month as a Clinton delegate.

With less than two weeks until Aug. 25, when Democrats open their nominating convention in Denver, the sentiment is typical of many Clinton delegates who say the nomination of the New York senator from the floor of the convention doesn't endanger Obama's presidential campaign - and could serve his cause.

The Obama campaign declined to comment on the story, but many supporters of the presumed Democratic nominee suggest that Clinton will get more than her share of high-profile face time and respect at the convention.

She is scheduled to deliver a keynote address on Aug. 26 - reportedly to be introduced by her daughter, Chelsea - and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, is delivering the prime-time address on the following night, when the vice presidential candidate is nominated.

Moving on

Still, "I don't think there's any harm in nominating Sen. Clinton at the convention," said David Serrano Sewell of San Francisco, one of the delegates at the forefront of the signature-gathering movement. "It will acknowledge the success we had, and it will give an opportunity for people to express themselves and get behind Obama and win in November."

Already, he said, Clinton delegates have more than half of the 300 signatures needed to put Clinton's name into nomination - and they fully expect to get more than enough by the time the convention begins in Denver.

"It's a simple thing to do, and it's the biggest sign of party unity," said Laura Spanjian, a San Francisco Clinton delegate who also supports the move. "If we do that one thing, the Hillary people can get past it - and move on."

Clay Dougherty, another San Francisco delegate for Clinton, said that "if the situation were reversed, the Obama people would feel the same."

"For the first time in a generation, it's been a close election ... and this was such a unique situation," he said, in which the first major African American presidential candidate competed with the first major female presidential candidate. "We need to honor both candidates," he said.

And many Democrats suggest that the move to accommodate Clinton's supporters may be politically smart.

"Sen. Clinton is going to do everything she can to make sure Sen. Obama is the next president - and that will include how the convention is handled and the role she plays," says Democratic strategist Chris Lehane, who was a Clinton supporter and a past White House spokesman for Bill Clinton.

But "polls out there show that older women are the potential swing demographic in this election," he said. "It helps Obama and the party ... to have her play a prominent role in the convention."

Under the rules of the Democratic National Committee, 300 valid delegate signatures are needed in order to place a candidate's name on the ballot - if the candidate agrees to it.

Bob Mulholland, an undecided California superdelegate, said that means "if a candidate's got delegates, then both names can be placed in nomination" - and the losing candidate, in this case Clinton, can declare, " 'Let's make it unanimous.' "

Or Clinton can be nominated and a surrogate speaking on her behalf can say, "The senator has declined, but let's vote on Obama," he noted.

A third option is that she won't allow her name to be nominated at all, he said.

Organized resistance

Mauro said that because it was such a closely contested election, he is mystified as to why the Obama campaign is resisting and even balking at a roll-call vote, according to some reports.

"Are these folks so new to politics, are they so arrogant, that they think he's different from every other nominee we've ever had?" he asks.

Serrano Sewell says one reason for the resistance may be that some Democratic officials have apparently mistakenly associated the delegates' activities with those of an independent group of Clinton supporters who call themselves PUMAs (which stands for "Party Unity My Ass"), who have pledged that they will protest outside the Denver convention.

He says there's no connection.

"We're not trying to drag Obama down," he said. "We're Democrats. We're precinct captains. We're fundraisers. We're the kind of Democrats Obama will need to win in November."

Dougherty says he's now waiting for a signal from Clinton herself about what might happen next in Denver.

"If she releases us for the sake of party unity, fine," he said. "But she hasn't done that. The campaigns are talking - and I respect they need to come to an agreement that makes both sides happy."

E-mail Carla Marinucci at cmarinucci@sfchronicle.com.

NPR interviews PUMAs Darragh Murphy and Pamela Merritt

Now first off, I am just plain glad this happened. Any discussion of roll call at Denver in the wider mediasphere is good. Specially NPR is even a better place, it is listeners of this demographic that really need to do a lot of soul searching. And they can have an effect if they put their mind to it.

Both Darragh and Pamela were excellent. They were composed, lively, quick, and happy sounding. The last was important since the host Michel Martin (Click here to see the NPR story and hear the audio) kept pushing the angry Hillary voter agenda. Both lady pumas did well on that score. All in all a good show, but the host let her slip show, I think.

Please advise all your friends to post these links in their blogs.

Barack Obama Needs to Carefully Handle Hillary Clinton's Supporters

August 11, 2008 10:24 AM ET | Bonnie Erbe

One media outlet described the release of the draft Democratic platform as a "compilation of Obama stump speeches," with just a nod to former candidates Sen. Hillary Clinton and former Sen. John Edwards.

But a close Clinton ally tells me the Clinton camp is quite happy with the platform's inclusion of language to the effect that Clinton placed 18 million "cracks" in the glass ceiling (an allusion to her winning 18 million votes during the primaries).

That said, there are heated discussions ongoing "as we speak" between Clinton's representatives and the now Obama-controlled Democratic National Committee over Clinton's role at the convention. The big question is whether or how to acknowledge her win of almost 1,900 delegates (1,896) to Obama's 2,229. More...

One would think with his nomination now secure, Obama's people would be happy to take the high road and acknowledge Clinton's accomplishments. Particularly since a new poll shows some 24 percent of her former supporters say they will either vote for rival Sen. John McCain or not vote at all.

Not so, says my source. With the Democratic Convention just weeks away, it is still unclear whether Hillary Clinton's name will be placed in nomination or included in the roll call at the event. At a recent event, Clinton encouraged her supporters to yell and scream at the convention, but to then unify the party.

In the video, she says, "I happen to believe that we will come out stronger if people feel that their voices were heard and their views were respected. I think that is a very big part of how we actually come out unified. Because I know from just what I'm hearing that there's this 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 Senator Obama. That is what most people believe is the best way to go. No decisions have been made. And so we are trying to work all this through with the DNC and with the Obama campaign."

Clinton and Obama released a joint statement earlier this week affirming they'll work together. Yet my source tells me "togetherness" is not the tone used to describe negotiations between the camps. The Clinton people want to employ some method used at a prior convention. It was suggested to me, for example, that the roll call could be announced, but before the voting started, Clinton could come to the podium and tell all her delegates to cast votes for Obama. Diane Mantouvalos is cofounder of the website JustSayNoDeal.com. She told me by phone from Boston this week that many Clinton supporters won't be satisfied if the Obama camp denies Clinton delegates an opportunity to be seen and heard at the convention: "Democracy isn't something you negotiate. It is only fair for her delegates to cast her vote."

Ellen Moran is the executive director of Emily's List, which endorses pro-choice female Democratic candidates for office. The group backed Clinton before she ended her campaign in June. Now Emily's List won't endorse but is supporting Obama. She told me in person this week:

"What I think we'll see at the convention is Senator Clinton and Senator Obama working together and many of our supporters working together to show real unity...to elect Obama and to elect Democrats up and down the ticket this November," she said. "You might say that women voters hold this election in the palm of their hands. And certainly every Democrat running—and Obama is no exception—will have to continue to work to win those women over. "

Mantouvalos told me that without Clinton supporters behind him, Obama cannot beat McCain: "We contend [that lack of unity is] the reason Senator Obama is in a dead heat with a 71-year-old Republican, and—no disrespect for Senator McCain, but age is a factor to many voters. He represents the incumbent party, [which] most of the American people are unhappy with. Why is it that they are tied right now?"

Mantouvalos believes it is because a large chunk of Clinton's 18 million supporters are upset the Obama campaign has not been more gracious toward Senator Clinton and has done little to reach out to her former supporters.

Eeny-Meeny, Chile Beany, the Spirits are about to Speak!

Posted on August 11, 2008 by riverdaughter and reposted here to share. Click to read More...

It was two months ago when I wrote the first couple of posts on the PUMA movement. In one of those posts, I wrote about how they were going to frame us:

Like adolescents, they insist on making their own decisions and yet expect us to get them out of a jam later. They hate us because of who we are and yet they need us in order for them to get what they want. And the superdelegates are the too permissive parents who are giving in to them because they can’t handle the screaming and guilt trips that will follow if they don’t.

This is where we come in, PUMAs. We will fill the role that the superdelegates have abrogated. It is our job to say “no”. We do not want to lose in 2008. We do not want another four years of Republican rule. We want 4 years of intelligence, competence and courage in a time of what will surely be a very critical time in our nation’s history. Terrorism is still out there. There are two wars going on. Our military is stretched so thinly that our national security is compromised. We have an energy crisis and many families are hurting. Our financial institutions got themselves over their heads. And there is a serious environmental catastrophe at hand in global warming.

Now is not the time to put a love object in office, a weakling who will be entirely dependent on his power elite enablers. Or worse, he may be a dissembler who has barely disguised his contempt for the voters.

There will be a lot of calls for “Unity!”. But let us acknowledge what this really is. “Unity” is a weapon that the party is going to use against us. It is the emotional blackmail of the teenager. “If you don’t let me have my way, it will be all YOUR fault if something bad happens!” “If you don’t get in line, it will be YOUR fault if we lose.

Of course, the old political blogosphere, especially the Big Orange Cheeto, has been foaming at the mouth for about a month now about how we are going to lose the election for Obama and it will be all our fault if McCain wins. We now have the pundits making this same case. Listen to Diane Mantavoulos and Susan Estrich debating the matter on To The Point today (Click on the Hillary tab at the bottom). As Susan spins it, our movement is going to end up electing McCain and it’s better to give a show of quiet unity at the convention, no matter what. She waxes nostalgic about how she was a young’un in 1980 when she worked to get Ted Kennedy the nomination. “Ahh, yes, those were the days. We were all babes in the woods and had no idea what we were doing” stuff.

Please, Susan. Kennedy had about 600 delegates tops. He was so far behind Carter it wasn’t funny. There was no possibility of overturning the will of so many *pledged* delegates. You weren’t suffering from youthful inexperience. You were suffering from stupidity.

This convention is a completely different animal. Hillary is well within striking distance, the superdelegates are going to decide it regardless of the nominee and once the credentials committee gets around to acting on Obama’s letter asking for MI and FL to be restored to full strength, he won’t have enough delegates to be the presumptive nominee anymore. (I suspect the Credentials Committee will meet at around 11:55pm on the day before the convention so he can ride this baby all the way to the end and make Hillary look like an usurper if she unsuspends her campaign. Yeah, we’ve got your number, Axelrod.)

What Susan seems to be missing, but what she oddly catches onto just before the segment ends, is that you can not fake unity. You can put Hillary’s delegates on mute. You can threaten and intimidate them until they are afraid of their own shadows, You can lie to them so they have no idea if they are supposed to vote for Hillary or Obama or Julius Caesar. It can certainly be made to *look* like 3400 pledged delegates voted in unison for The One while they all held hands and sang “I want to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony.” But the voters don’t give a flying f%&* When you have 36,300,000 million voters in your party and you choose to ignore a little more than half of them, all you end up with is frustration, not unity. You take away the voters right to influence at the convention. Remember “self-determination”? Yeah, we used to broadcast all around the world urging citizens of other countries to insist on it and accept no substitutes. But in this country, in this election year, it is perfectly OK to squelch the self-determination of half of your party for a predetermined outcome. That may be a very satisfying short term goal. Sort of like an orgasm with 75,000 of your closest friends in a football stadium. But when it’s over, the party is going to find that it screwed over the wrong people.

Hey, if the DNC and Obama and all his supporters want to go this route and bully, swagger, cheat, steal and suppress the party because they simply must have their way, well, there isn’t much we can do to stop them. THAT is the superdelegates’ job. If the superdelegates just go along to get along and nominate a guy who is over his head and unelectable, that’s their fault when he loses. We tried to talk some sense into them.

We are just voters who wanted to nominate the best person for the job. We may be shut out now, but come November 4th, we are going to have a chance to exercise our constitutional rights and tell the DNC exactly how we feel about being given a choice between a rock and a hard place.

Enjoy the afterglow while it lasts, guys.

***********************

You can find more on the subject at US News and World Report in an article by Bonnie Erbe: Barack Obama Needs to Carefully Handle Hillary Clinton’s Supporters.

A Third Palestinian Brother and the FEC Says “Hi” To Barack Obama

From NOQUARTER reposted here:

The The Real Barack Obama has a hot follow-up story I just couldn’t resist stealing.

Last week we saw where Monir and Hosam Edwan, two brothers from a Hamas Compound, who claimed to be lving in the non-existent town of “Rafah, Georgia,” contributed between $24,000 and $33,500 ( moving-target sum) to the Obama campaign. More...

Initially, the two jihadists brothers claimed that they bought T-Shirts from Obama’s website.

Then the Obama campaign claimed they returned the money to the Edwan brothers and forgot to report it to the FEC due to a technicality.

Then the Hamas-Sycophants Edwan brothers declared that they never received any refund from the Obama campaign at all.

As skunky as that all sounded, there is yet more.

It seems there is a third brother, Osama Edwan, who contributed to Obama’s campaign as well. He also disclosed that he is from the non-existent town of “Rafah, Georgia”.

Click here to see brother Osama Edwan’s donation to Barack Obama. Hamas sure is busy helping to make sure their Wink-Wink endorsement of Barack Obama sticks.

There’s still more to this story. I would say that the FEC wasn’t asleep over the donations of Monir and Hosam Edwan. So I don’t imagine an inquiry into Osama Edwan can be far behind. No doubt the Obama campaign will say they ‘refunded’ the contributions but “forgot” to report the entire affair to the FEC due to a “glitch”. After all, that’s what they claimed happened with Monir and Hosam Edwan’s contributions.

That Obama “technical glitch” sure seems to be an ongoing problem. It appears that the “technical glitch” the Obama campaign claims kept them from reporting that they “refunded” these illegal donations to the FEC occurred not once, but twice. The campaign didn’t report the “refunds” in their end of year report. But they also had a second formal oppotunity to correct their “glitch” via a response to a direct FEC inquiry–and they failed to do so.

Today, the Obama Report writes that Pamela Geller, who provides copies of the documents at Atlas Shrugs, discovered that

“… the FEC had sent two letters to the Obama campaign seeking additional information regarding contributions it received that appeared to exceed the $2300 legal limit.

Among those questionable contributions, were donations from Monir and Hosam Edwan.The Obama campaign responded to the first letter in May 2008, but apparently the FEC was not satisfied with its response and sent out a second letter to the Obama campaign on July 30,2008 requesting additional information for sixteen pages of questionable contributions, including several of Monir Edwan’s contributions.

So apparently, the Obama campaign failed to tell the FEC about the refunded money both in its original FEC report and in its response to the FEC’s letter in May of 2008 (5 months after they allegedly returned the money). Otherwise, the FEC would have had no reason to further question them about these donations in its follow up letter (in July) - which makes the Obama campaign’s claim - that it returned their donations in December - all the more difficult to swallow.

You can see the two FEC letters to the Obama campaign here and here. You certainly won’t get to see them on MSNBC or CNN.

So what about these contributions, Barky? I mean they are illegal and you know it. So if you “refunded” this money, how come you didn’t say so in writing to the FEC. Just asking. We’re also looking forward to reading your August 29th deadline response to the second FEC inquiry. I mean, when two terrorist sympathizers in Palestine start to look more honest that you look, it doesn’t bode well for a man who wants to be the President of the United States. You know what they say about three strikes, right?

I also suspect that the next question the FEC will ask is where exactly on the Georgia USA map is “Rafah”. But hey, I could be wrong

136,450 Democrats & Independents Against Obama Emails & Counting! July 26th, Update

Perhaps many of you are already seen this initiative - but I had not. I apologize to those who have read this before...

136,450 Democrats & Independents Against Obama Emails & Counting! July 26th, Update Wow!

This morning we have updated the 'Last Stand' Email Initiative to stop the nomination of Barack Obama has passed the 136,000 mark. To date we have targeted approximately 1/4 of the Superdelegates and plan on reaching all of them, including the Superdelegates that have pledged support to Hillary Clinton, prior to the Democratic Convention. More...

Now is the time to try one last attempt to convince Democrat Superdelegates to drop Obama and reform the Democratic Primary System an re-establish the rule of "equal representation".

Thank you to those few have donated to offset the maintenance and time involved with this project, and thank you to those who have emailed me to thank me or to ask questions. I have been slow to respond, as I seem to be bombarded with emails from unhappy Obama supporters. I will respond to friendly emails, it may just take me a few days to do so. There have also been numerous emails as to why I have set-up this initiative, some out of curiosity some for other reasons. If you've visited our site from the beginning, then you know that I am a John McCain Supporter but that I also believe that an election should be a contest between the 2 candidates best suited to be President. I have seen, first hand, what Obama and his Chicago buddies have done the government in Illinois, and I will not stand by and risk that occurring on a national scale. I would welcome a Clinton or McCain presidency, and if there is any opportunity to keep Obama from being one-step closer the presidency then I welcome the opportunity.

I also have gained a great deal of personal respect for a group of Democrats, many life-long Democrats, who have realized that their party is no longer the party of FDR, Truman and Kennedy; it is the party of McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, Pelosi and Reid. They recognize that the party which has decried disenfranchisement and pointed fingers in the past is the very party responsible for manipulating their own primary system resulting in the most widespread volume of fraud and disenfranchisement in American Political history. We may not agree on all political positions, but we agree that this nation was built upon the ideal of "equal representation" and a government that works for the people rather than to secure more power.

Thank you again to all those who have donated and the list has been updated as of this morning. The next update will occur on Tuesday morning. With that in mind, when you complete the form, please remember the costs and time that I am committing to this project and consider a small donation. This will allow us to continue to maintain the form and update it on time every three days. Also, please remember to visit every three days to resubmit your email to the updated lists of Superdelegates.

Click Here For "Last Stand" Email Initiative For Pumas

J Brown
July 26th, 2008


Tired Of High Gas Prices? Send a message to congress to do it all and do it now! Join our Drill Now Congressional Email Initiative

Democrats & Independents Easily Contact Dem Superdelegates through our 'Last Stand' Stop Obama Email Initiative

National Women's History Project Website

"A piece of history we need to remember, or perhaps become aware of, told in a brief and moving way. I never knew this anyway. This is the story of our Grandmothers, and Great-grandmothers, as they lived only 90 years ago. It was not until 1920 that women were granted the right to go to the polls and vote. The women who made it so were innocent and defenseless. And by the end of the night, they were barely alive. More...

Forty prison guards wielding clubs and their warden's blessing went on a rampage against the 33 women wrongly convicted of 'obstructing sidewalk traffic'. They beat Lucy Burn, chained her hands to the cell bars above her head and left her hanging for the night, bleeding and gasping for air. They hurled Dora Lewis into a dark cell, smashed her head against an iron bed and knocked her out cold. Her cellmate, Alice Cosu, thought Lewis was dead and suffered a heart attack. Additional affidavits describe the guards grabbing, dragging, beating, choking, slamming, pinching, twisting and kicking the women.

Thus unfolded the 'Night of Terror' on Nov. 15, 1917, when the warden at the Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia ordered his guards to teach a lesson to the suffragists imprisoned there because they dared to picket Woodrow Wilson's White House for the right to vote.

For weeks, the women's only water came from an open pail. Their food--all of it colorless slop--was infested with worms. When one of the leaders, Alice Paul, embarked on a hunger strike, they tied her to a chair, forced a tube down her throat and poured liquid into her until she vomited. She was tortured like this for weeks until word was smuggled out to the press.

So, refresh my memory. Some women won't vote this year because--why, exactly? We have carpool duties? We have to get to work? Our vote doesn't matter? It's raining?

Last week, I went to a sparsely attended screening of HBO 's new movie 'Iron Jawed Angels' starring Hilary Swank. It is a graphic depiction of the battle these women waged so that I could pull the curtain at the polling booth and have my say. I am ashamed to say I needed the reminder.

All these years later, voter registration is still my passion. But the actual act of voting had become less personal for me, more rote. Frankly, voting often felt more like an obligation than a privilege. Sometimes it was inconvenient.

My friend Wendy, who is my age and studied women's history, saw the HBO movie, too. When she stopped by my desk to talk about it, she looked angry. She was--with herself. 'One thought kept coming back to me as I watched that movie,' she said. 'What would those women think of the way I use--or don't use--my right to vote? All of us take it for granted now, not just younger women, but those of us who did seek to learn.' The right to vote, she said, had become valuable to her 'all over again.'

HBO released the movie on video and DVD. I wish all history, social studies and government teachers would include the movie in their curriculum. I want it shown on Bunco night, too, and anywhere else women gather. I
realize this isn't our usual idea of socializing, but we are not voting in the numbers that we should be, and I think a little shock therapy is in order.

It is jarring to watch Woodrow Wilson and his cronies try to persuade a psychiatrist to declare Alice Paul insane so that she could be permanently institutionalized. And it is inspiring to watch the doctor refuse. Alice Paul was strong, he said, and brave. That didn't make her crazy. The doctor admonished the men: 'Courage in women is often mistaken for insanity.'

Please, if you are so inclined, pass this on to all the women you know. We need to get out and vote and use this right that was fought so hard for by these very courageous women. Whether you vote democratic, republican or
independent party - remember to vote. History is being made.

Linda M. Dyer"

There is a man’s face and an accusing word in this picture... Could it be obama?

Misleading Information from Democratic canvassers on Queene Anne

*In Washington State your vote WON'T be counted if you write Hillary's name in!*

Dear Michael,

A woman at your Seattle office asked me to email you directly concerning an incident this afternoon with one of your neighborhood canvassers. About 20 minutes ago a young woman with light brown hair (put up on her head) came to my doorstep. My 12 year-old daughter answered the door. My daughter came to my office and said there was a woman wearing an obama shirt and buttons at the door and that she wanted to speak with me because “she if for Hillary, too.” (We have a large Hillary campaign sign in our window). I wondered why this woman would tell my daughter that she is for Hillary if she is 1) wearing obama advertising and 2) Hillary’s nomination is the subject of much debate at the moment.More...

When I came to the door the young woman was standing on our walkway and she made the declaration in an overly bright voice that she was indeed “..for Hillary, too!” I asked her who she was representing and she said she is with the local/state Democratic party. I told her that I am an “Independent” voter and that I would not be voting for obama. She admonished me to not vote for McCain and when I told her that I would probably be voting for McCain, she said that that was too bad because McCain was a bad choice and his platform is different than Clinton’s. I told her that while that may be true, I find that McCain’s ethics are closer to Clinton’s and that is why I will not be voting for obama.

She then said that I should, instead, “write Hillary’s name in on [my] ballot.” Naturally I was surprised that she would advise me to do such a thing and told her that of course everyone knows that writing in Hillary’s name is no more than a throw away vote and that she shouldn’t be advising people to do that since it is intentionally misleading. At that point I wanted to end the discussion, but she continued in a loud voice. I walked back into my house and she continued to shout at me from outside, but still standing on my property.

I don’t know what the state Democratic party is thinking to have such brash and untruthful people working for it but enough is enough. As a former Democrat myself, I am deeply saddened to see the tactics you are using to get votes for your candidate. I will be writing and speaking with a couple of news outlets to let them know to tell their readers to be on the lookout in the next few weeks for people working for the state Dem party who use such dishonest tactics.

Sincerely,
XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX
Queen Anne/Seattle XXXXX

IT'S TIME FOR CLINTON TO TELL THE DNC THAT SHE AND HER SUPPORTERS DON'T DO WINDOWS.

Posted by Marc Rubin at Tom in Paine and reposted here to share.

After corrupting Democratic rules and procedures to try and force a dishonest, inept, and clownish candidate down the throats of the majority of the Democratic Party who have rejected him, the leadership of the Democratic Party (an oxymoron if there ever was one) have expected Hillary Clinton to put her own credibility on the line as well as give up her own legitimate candidacy for President to clean up the mess the DNC has made of the entire selection process, the impending disaster waiting at the convention, and Democratic chances in the fall, which, if Clinton does not have her name put in nomination, are nil. More...

After corrupting Democratic rules and procedures to try and force a dishonest, inept, and clownish candidate down the throats of the majority of the Democratic Party who have rejected him, the leadership of the Democratic Party (an oxymoron if there ever was one) have expected Hillary Clinton to put her own credibility on the line as well as give up her own legitimate candidacy for President to clean up the mess the DNC has made of the entire selection process, the impending disaster waiting at the convention, and Democratic chances in the fall, which, if Clinton does not have her name put in nomination, are nil.

They've been expecting Clinton to drum up support from her voters for a bogus and unelectable candidate who had no business being presented as the nominee in the first place based on Democratic rules and reality, and now the time has come for Clinton, for the sake of the party and her own credibility, to tell them enough is enough.

Corrupt is not too strong a word to use to describe what is going on among the leadership of the DNC, and their sycophants in the press (like the absurd op ed of August 10 in the New York Times by Michelle Cottle which shows, like most of her colleagues, she is either badly out of touch with reality or in Obama's pocket).

A glaring example of this unvarnished and what can only be called shameless corruption, is Bill Richardson who sounds more and more like someone stealing hub caps than someone who is the governor of a state. When he was asked by Jake Tapper in a recent interview about Clinton's name being placed in nomination and having a roll call vote this is what he said:

"I do not believe we should have a roll call vote but just get behind Barack Obama as our nominee and this is happening. We will be united at the convention therefore there is no need for a vote.

This is the corrupt politician Richardson has become. Call it the Obama Effect, Richardson is like a dog taking on the characteristics of his or her owner. Richardson is now ready to throw 18 million voters under the bus and pretend they don't exist in the name of faking party unity. This is the kind of lunacy that makes one think that Obama supporters like Richardson need to be on Prozac before they end up on parole for even greater corruption.

Even for those as stupid as Richardson who were taken in by Obama or corrupted by him from the beginning, his recent appeal to the credentials committee to allow the full seating of Florida and Michigan strips him of the 55 delegates he was awarded in the Michigan compromise which means that even including the bogus super delegate declarations that officially don't count, Obama does not now have the 2/3 needed to be the nominee and neither he, Richardson, nor the DNC have any right to call him the nominee.

That it continues is just further proof that Dean, Pelosi, Brazile, Fowler and sycophants like Richardson are willing to corrupt the process, the party and the rules to push a dishonest and false candidate. Given the choice between saving the Democratic Party or saving their face, they seem to be choosing to save their face.

As for Clinton and her charade of support for Obama, the Democratic leadership has expected Clinton to support Obama even while she was running against him, which is part of the reason the playing field was so slanted on his behalf. The press and their own corrupt bias made it worse.

Even so she won 8 of the last 11 primaries and Obama limped to the finish line like a punch drunk fighter. Then, as everyone knows, Dean and Pelosi browbeat a bunch of spineless super delegates into making symbolic declarations that didn't count for anything just so they could declare they had a candidate when according to party rules and processes they didn't.

Clinton has dutifully gone along with this charade long enough. She has been loudly supporting Obama even though a village idiot knows she is only doing what the Democratic Party is asking. But it has to stop. It has done no good. And it never will. People simply aren't as stupid as Dean, Pelosi and Brazile want to think they are. And, not too put too fine a point on it, unlike Pelosi, the people she is trying to persuade do not have a 9% job approval rating like she does, which is another reason nothing she says will go anywhere with the majority of the party.

Obama is an unelectable candidate. From the very beginning he's had all the earmarks of a con artist—a snake oil salesman with no moral compass, no principles, no ideas, nothing of any value to anyone except his own, arrogance, stupidity and ambition. He managed to get as far as he has because Dean and Pelosi corrupted the process and because Obama could impress the easily impressed and easily duped, which includes many of the water buffalo known as the news media most of whom would rather shoot a puppy than have to stand up on their own and tell the truth.

Richard Cohen, an early Obama supporter is a good example. He recently wrote:

He has been for and against gun control, against and for the recent domestic surveillance legislation and, in almost a single day, for a united Jerusalem under Israeli control and then, when apprised of U.S. policy and Palestinian chagrin, against it. He is an accomplished pol — a statement of both admiration and a bit of regret.

Cohen even now, in trying to see Obama for what he is, doesn't want to face the truth. Obama is not an accomplished pol -- he is an accomplished liar and there is a big difference. Cohen still doesn't want to face that he was taken in when tens of millions of other people weren't. Which is typical of people who have been conned. Ask anyone in law enforcement and they will tell you the single biggest reason con artists get away with their con is that people are too embarrassed to admit they were fooled and would rather not report it then face embarrassment. Add Richard Cohen to that list.

But with Clinton going along with this charade because it's what the Democratic leadership is asking, there is the danger of Clinton's own credibility being damaged by continuing to show support for a candidate who by the party’s own rules, is not the official candidate, who does not have the support of the majority of the Democratic Party, who has collapsing poll numbers and who he is now at a point where his own megalomania and serial lying has disintegrated into looking absolutely clownish.

Not only that, but there is evidence staring everyone right in the face that Obama is clearly afraid he will lose if Senator Clinton's name is in nomination.And the press seems to be blind to it.

I made this point today to an editor who was doing a follow up interview with me and I pointed out that if Obama really felt he had this nomination sewed up he would be the first one to place Clinton's name in nomination to win over her voters. If he were sure he had the super delegates he needed to win, it would be politically stupid for him not to. He can't possibly win a general election without her voters and conservatively right now I'd say he will lose a lot more than half. He cant win losing 10 million votes. So why is he so against putting her name in nomination?

In a recent interview he was asked about Clinton's name being put in nomination. He said her role was being worked out. The interviewer said, " so then you don't object to Senator Clinton's name being placed in nomination". His answer was, " I didn't say that".

It should be clear to anyone in the press or anyone with even a shred of political acumen that Obama doesn't want her name in nomination because he is afraid he will lose. There is no doubt that head counting going on within the Obama campaign ,just the way there is on Capitol Hill when a controversial bill is to be brought to the floor to see if the bill will pass and if there aren't the votes, the bill isn't brought up.

There is no doubt that Obama is realizing the votes may not be there, that he cant count on all of the 438 super delegate declarations he thought he could. And he is counting on Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi to do what they can to corrupt the process to make sure that cant happen. They'd rather corrupt democracy than have an honest but contentious convention where at least whoever emerged as the nominee could actually claim to be the legitimate nominee.

The time has come for Clinton to say to Howard Dean, " this is your mess not mine, you did it, not me and it's not for me to clean up. If you had played by Democratic Party rules in the first place, if you hadn't been so politically stupid, you wouldn't have this brewing disaster on your hands. Stop putting it on my shoulders. It's not my responsibility to make this clown an electable candidate when he isn't."

The only thing that can save the Democratic Party now is acknowledging that by their own rules they simply don't have an official nominee and wont till the roll call vote. They have to let party procedures play out and then let whoever wins win. And it has to be honest. Any hint of a backroom deal or pressure on Clinton to be anything other than a legitimate candidate with a legitimate chance, and the party will go completely down the drain in November and take all the down ticket Democrats with them. And they will deserve it.

Obama, and people like Richardson, Dean, Pelosi and Brazile have corrupted the party and its processes and Clinton can't in good conscience be a party to that anymore.

Including Florida and Michigan which Obama now acknowledges should count as per their original results, Democratic primary season ended with this result:

Obama, 1,711 pledged delegates, Clinton, 1,662, giving Obama a paltry 49 delegate lead out of more than 4000. Clinton won the popular vote with a 175,000 vote lead.

This is the result that caused the leadership of the Democratic Party and the sycophants in the press to declare Obama the winner over Clinton even though neither candidate had the 2/3 majority and no super delegate vote had been officially cast. These are the results that led Bill Richardson to say we shouldn't have a roll call vote, that Obama is the nominee and that the party should unite behind him.

And they are telling Clinton voters to get over it?

Right now, by any standard including HBO's Comedy Night, Obama as the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee is a joke. And unless there is a fair and open convention the Democratic Party will deserve to get wiped out in November which they most surely will, and then Clinton's voters can say " get over it."

At the risk of being redundant, Clinton didn't make this mess, they did. She didn't try and slant the playing field in Obama's favor, they did. She didn't usurp and trash Democratic Party rules and procedures when they just should have been allowed to play out, they did. And she didn't force Obama to display a phony Presidential seal, renege on every promise he made during the primary season, bribe people with food and a free concert to fake a big turnout at his speeches and prove himself to be a serial liar, he did all that on his own. It's not her responsibility that Obama cant get out of a tie with John McCain when almost any Democratic candidate would be up by double digits. Any candidate but Barack Obama.

It's their mess and its not Clinton's job to help clean it up. And its not up to her supporters to clean up the mess either.

No one doubts that Clinton feels she is the better candidate both for the Democratic Party and for the country. And obviously so do the 18 million who voted for her and saw through Obama's clownish facade from the beginning. The best thing Clinton can do for the country and the party now is to stop making these unequivocal statements of support on behalf of Obama. No one believes them anyway and they are not doing anyone any good. Obama's numbers are getting worse every day because of Obama not because Clinton isn't doing enough.

The only course of action for the Democratic Party now is to put an end to this charade, have Dean and Pelosi swallow what is left of their pride, have an open roll call vote with both candidates' names in nomination and let the super delegates do what they are supposed to do -- vote for either nominee. Let them take responsibility for their votes and the outcome of their votes, and let whoever gets the most votes wins. Which is the way it should have been in the first place.

Then let Dean, Pelosi, Obama and Brazile grab a mop and a broom and some window cleaner and when the convention is over, do their own cleaning up.

NOTE: I received a copy of this email reply to a Clinton supporter from the Mayor of Albuquerque NM, home of Obama sycophant and political water boy Bill Richardson. He didnt tell the supporter to do windows but he did tell her to get lost. His email address along with his reply is published here. I think he will be suprised about who represents what and what he thinks he knows. And how this attitude, if something doesnt radically change, is going to bring down Obama if he is the Democratic nominee and every Democratic candidate for office that supports him.

From: mailto:martychavez%40gmail.comDate: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:20:45 -0600To: "________" Subject: Re: Hillary in Nomination

First, you may have supported Senator Clinton but neither you nor Puma represent the people that voted for her. Only she does. Second, you have no place telling me how to do my job. Third, remove me from your e-mail list. Fourth, get lost.

The Hillary Clinton Memos

A complete index to the internal communications referenced in "The Front-Runner's Fall.

by Joshua Green
The Hillary Clinton Memos

“The Plan,” October 2006
Clinton had forbidden her advisers from openly discussing her presidential ambitions until after she’d won reelection to the Senate. But behind the scenes, planning was already underway. In this October 2006 strategy memo, Mark Penn sketched out the campaign’s strategic principles (“HRC is the power candidate”) and assessed potential opponents. He worried that Al Gore was “waiting to swoop in later.” More...

Penn’s “Launch Strategy” Ideas, December 21, 2006
Shortly after Clinton’s reelection, Penn tried out some themes in this flattering memo to his boss. He suggested former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as a role model: “We are more Thatcher than anyone else.” Penn believed that voters view their president as the “father” of the country. “They do not want someone who would be the first mama,” he counseled. “But there is a yearning for a kind of tough single parent.” (He did not propose divorce.) Penn thought voters were “open to the first father being a woman.” But he warned again about the perils of being seen as too soft. “A word about being human,” he wrote. “Bill Gates once asked me, ‘Could you make me more human?’ I said, ‘Being human is overrated.’”

Penn Strategy Memo, March 19, 2007
More than anything else, this memo captures the full essence of Mark Penn’s campaign strategy—its brilliance and its breathtaking attacks. Penn identified with impressive specificity the very coalition of women and blue-collar workers that Clinton ended up winning a year later. But he also called Obama “unelectable except perhaps against Attila the Hun,” and wrote, “I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values.” Penn proposed targeting Obama’s “lack of American roots.”

Karl Rove Strategy Memo to Bill Clements, Jr., September 4, 1985
As a contrast to Mark Penn’s memos, here’s a fun piece of political arcana: a Karl Rove strategy memo written to former Texas governor Bill Clements, Jr., on the eve of the 1986 gubernatorial race. Clements was elected governor in 1978 but lost his bid for reelection. He was attempting a comeback. Note the tone of bracing honesty: Rove lays out his client’s “potentially explosive” weaknesses, including arrogance and bad press relations. Then he explains how they can be overcome. (Let’s forgive Rove the hackneyed Napoleon quote—Clements won the race.)

Harold Ickes Lists the Campaign’s “Key Assumptions,” March 29, 2007
Soon after Clinton’s presidential campaign got underway, senior adviser Harold Ickes circulated this list of “Key Assumptions.” They include his belief that February 5 would decide the nominee; that Clinton could not survive losses in Iowa and New Hampshire (but that John Edwards and Barack Obama could); and that the prevailing view of her as the incumbent was potentially dangerous. Fatefully, Ickes cited the need to maintain a $25 million reserve fund for use after Iowa—but following Clinton’s loss, he confessed to colleagues, “The cupboard is empty.”

Penn Strategy Memo, April 8, 2007
With Obama’s popularity and fund-raising strength becoming clearer by the day, Penn seemed to absorb the public criticism of Clinton as behaving imperiously. “Show more of the happy warrior,” he counseled. He was also becoming attuned to the importance of the “change” theme Obama was touting: “Let’s talk more about a movement for change coming from the people.” He proposed the slogan “America is Ready for a Change, and HRC is Ready to Lead Us.”

The “Kindergarten” Attack, December 2, 2007
On December 2, Clinton exploded at her staff on a morning conference call, frustrated that her campaign wasn’t on the attack. Hours later, in this series of emails, her panicked staff reacted by putting together an ill-advised attack on Obama for having written a kindergarten essay titled “I Want to Become President.”

Harold Ickes Memo on the Delegate System, December 22, 2007
Harold Ickes was the adviser with primary responsibility for the campaign’s delegate and targeting strategy. While the Obama campaign shrewdly exploited the Democratic Party’s complicated system of allotting delegates, Ickes and the Clinton campaign did not. On December 22, just twelve days before the Iowa caucus, Ickes finally laid out the system for the campaign’s senior staff in this somewhat impenetrable memo.

Penn Strategy Memo for New Hampshire, December 30, 2007
On the eve of the Iowa caucus, the race was too close to call. In this memo, Penn ranked the “six potential scenarios coming out of Iowa” in order of preference. The best had Clinton winning and Obama finishing third. The worst-case scenario had Obama on top and Clinton in third—which ended up being the result. Penn laid out options for how the campaign might respond, including attacks on Obama and Edwards.

Patti Solis Doyle Welcomes Her Eventual Successor, January 13, 2008
In the wake her Iowa loss, Clinton chose not to fire anyone. Instead, she added another layer of advisers, including Maggie Williams, her former chief of staff. In this email, Patti Solis Doyle, Clinton’s embattled campaign manager, welcomes the woman who soon succeeded her.

"Move Your Cars!"
A memo to the entire D.C. staff.

Guy Cecil Memo Projecting Clinton’s Super Tuesday Performance, January 21, 2008
With the February 5 primaries just ahead, senior adviser Guy Cecil circulated this targeting memo to staffers. While Clinton had once expected to wrap up the nomination on Super Tuesday, Cecil recognized just how imperiled her candidacy was as that fateful date loomed. Nevertheless, he predicted that she could net 58 delegates.

Internal targeting projections for February 5th states, January 21, 2008

Harold Ickes post-Super Tuesday strategy, February 4, 2008
In this strategy memo on the eve of Super Tuesday, Harold Ickes surveyed the grim landscape ahead. Having cut the polling budget for many February 5 states, the campaign was essentially flying blind. “We are in for a real fight,” Ickes wrote, “but ... given some breaks, it is a fight that she can win.”

Letter of Complaint from the Washington Post’s Managing Editor, Philip Bennett, February 11, 2008
The Clinton staff engaged in epic battles with the press. As the campaign’s fortunes worsened, resentment at the press turned into personal attacks against reporters. In this letter to Clinton’s campaign manager, the Washington Post’s managing editor complained that Phil Singer, a senior Clinton spokesman, was spreading malicious—and false—rumors about a Post reporter to one of her own colleagues.

Penn Strategy Memo, March 5, 2008
On the heels of critical wins in Texas and Ohio, Penn continued pushing the ideas of “strength” and “leadership.” He worried that white male voters were “steadily eroding” and railed against the idea of showcasing Clinton’s softer side. “The idea,” he wrote, “that this can be won all on smiles, emotions, and empathy is simply wrong.”

Robert Barnett Email to Clinton and senior staff, March 6, 2008
A Washington wise man loses his cool.

Penn’s “Path to Victory,” March 30, 2008
After death-defying wins in Texas and Ohio, Mark Penn circulated his “Path to Victory,” which included portraying Obama as “a doomsday scenario.” He chided his adversaries for their timidity about attacking Obama’s pastor, Reverand Jeremiah Wright, Jr. “Many people,” Penn wrote, “believe under the surface that 20 years sitting there with Goddamn America would make him unelectable by itself.”

Harold Ickes Email, May 4, 2007
Harold Ickes was Clinton’s point man on the issue of Florida and Michigan. Throughout the campaign, he kept tabs on the ongoing strife between the two states and the Democratic National Committee—he did not try to influence it until too late.

Harold Ickes Email, August 24, 2007
More Florida-Michigan back and forth.

The “Florigan Plan I,” February 25, 2008
With Clinton’s delegate gap looming as a serious problem, a group of her advisers drew up a proposal to seize back momentum by demanding revotes in Florida and Michigan. Dubbed the “Florigan Plan,” it called on Clinton to issue a challenge to Obama on the morning of March 5, the day after her expected wins in Texas and Ohio.

The “Florigan Plan II,” March 5, 2008
Their initial suggestion ignored, the advisers behind the “Florigan Plan” again pushed the campaign to act on the issue of revotes in Florida and Michigan.

The “Florigan Plan III,” March 10, 2008
With hope fading that Clinton could close the delegate gap, several of her advisers made a final, unsuccessful push to address Florida and Michigan right away. The campaign did not do so until nine weeks later, on May 21.

Geoff Garin Email, April 12, 2008
When Geoff Garin replaced Mark Penn as chief strategist, he was appalled at the leaking and backstabbing. “I don’t mean to be an asshole…,” he wrote in this admonitory email to the senior staff.

Geoff Garin Email, April 25, 2008
Geoff Garin thought that a positive strategy, backed by a new infusion of spending, could revive Clinton’s campaign. He believed he could deliver a big win in Indiana and narrow the margin in North Carolina to single digits, as he explains in this email to senior staff.

The Clinton Campaign’s Final Pitch to Superdelegates, June 3, 2008
As the Democratic primaries drew to a close, Mark Penn put together a final presentation for superdelegates arguing why they should support Clinton over Obama. Note the province of Penn’s maps: Karl Rove & Co. faux pas?

55% Believe Media Bias is More of a Problem than Big Campaign Contributions

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 55% believe media bias is more of a problem than big campaign contributions: Voters overwhelmingly believe that politicians will "break the rules to help people who give them a lot of money," but most say there's a bigger problem in politics today - media bias.

OMG! Obama is so kewll!!!

Obama's using a new tech announcement gimmick to garner more personal information on people...More...

Obama's VP choice imminent via website, e-mail, text message

Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, is on vacation in Hawaii tonight. We believe. But, thanks to loyal Ticket reader Mark, just minutes ago we learned that the freshman senator's presidential campaign has confirmed that announcement of Obama's running mate choice is very near.

An e-mail just sent out says Obama "is about to choose a running mate." And when word comes, it will come by text message, e-mail and on the campaign website. An interesting twist that coulWho will be Democrat Barack Obama's vice presidential running mate? Questioned mean the word might be released this week even during Obama's family vacation.

The announcement will surely come before the Democratic National Convention starts in Denver on Aug. 25. It could even come while the candidate is on vacation, scheduled to end next Friday. If not, that leaves a 10-day announcement window of Aug. 15-25.

The traditional scenario would be for Obama and his pick to appear at a grand joint announcement somewhere with their families and dozens of TV cameras.

However, if hypothetically the announcement was to be made dramatically via cellphone texts, e-mails and the Obama website, the two candidates would not need to be together.

And if it came, oh, say, sometime this week, it would instantly dominate the news stream and erase any advantage Republican Sen. John McCain might have gotten from a week of campaigning without the Democrats' competition.

Then, the two Democratic running mates could appear together later at another event and get a bonus second publicity boost.

We're just saying.

This modern tech announcement gimmick, of course, also has the added benefit of presumably getting thousands of people to offer the campaign their e-mail addresses and cellphone numbers, a priceless, free recruiting and fund-raising tool.

When you sign up to receive the VP notification, you are offered another form to help recruit many friends and family to sign up too. NON-PARTISAN WARNING: You will soon also begin receiving regular pleas for money.

(Now, this commercial message: If you would rather receive instant notification of Obama's vice presidential choice via The Ticket -- free -- along with all new blog items 24 hours a day, you can enroll here:

(For existing Twitterers, go to http://twitter.com/latimestot

(Click Follow. Enroll there for alerts on every new Ticket item AND our instant, breaking-news items whenever and wherever anything is happening in the presidential race. And it's all free, of course.

(For about-to-be Twitter folks, think of it as text message headlines to any mobile device. Go here to enroll. Click on Join, not surprisingly. RSS feeds also available here.)

No Ticket donations appeals. We promise.

-- Andrew Malcolm