It takes 2118 delegate votes, at the Democratic nominating convention (in August), to win the Democratic Party's nomination for president.

Obama has 1766.5 "pledged" delegates

Hillary has 1639.5 "pledged" delegates

NEITHER Hillary NOR Obama has enough "pledged" delegates to win the nomination; either one would have to attract sufficient numbers of the "superdelegates" to win the nomination.

There are 823 superdelegates ... Obama needs to get the votes of 351.5 of them ... he currently has 463 who "say" they will support him, BUT they can change their minds anytime they want to.

Superdelegates can vote HOWEVER they please, and can CHANGE their vote at any time between now and August.

If -- and this is a very big "if" -- the superdelegates get the idea that Obama (as the nominee) is bad news for the Democratic Party and bad news for the down-ticket Democratic candidates, they (the superdelegates) CAN SWITCH to supporting Hillary IF THEY WANT TO.

It is up to us to make them want to, by exposing all of Obama's Broken Promises, and Obama's reversals of views.

Every day that goes by, Obama loses support -- let's keep that momentum going.

You can see by the table below that Obama cannot win the nomination unless he holds onto the superdelegates, but (as I said) they can change their vote now or anytime between now and the August roll-call vote.

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

-----

Delegates

Obama

Clinton

Total	-			2229.5	1896.5
Super Delegates	-	823		463	257
Pledged Delegates	-	3434		1766.5	1639.5

You can do the math, but Obama has only 127 more "pledged" delegates than Hillary has -- it's ALL up to the superdelegates.
[ More - Alegre's Corner ]

Or my staff's fault.

Or it's the fault of all those who didn't listen to what I was saying even though I had actually said something very different from what I am now claiming I said.

Furthermore, having NO experience is better than having experience. And, if I ever need brain surgery, I will be sure to find a new and inexperienced brain surgeon to do the surgery.

When I said (back in a Democratic debate last January) that I had "put forward a plan that will get our troops OUT [of Iraq] BY THE END OF 2009," [ More - NYT 1/15/2008 ] it was clear in my head -- even if NOT in my words -- that I "meant" NO such thing. What I really meant -- and if you had listened carefully, you would have understood -- was that I would have SOME troops out at SOME time (to be determined) in the future.

What IS your problem with listening to me?

When I said I would accept public funding if the Republican nominee would (McCain IS accepting public funding), I didn't mean in THIS election but I some far off election in another galaxy.

When I said I would NOT vote to end any filibuster against granting telecom immunity, it's YOUR fault that I went ahead and voted to END all debate on Dodd's attempted filibuster against granting telecom immunity.

YOUR fault.

Hillary's fault.

McCain's fault.

Not MY fault.

Nothing is ever my fault, and the sooner you accept that, the better the next eight years of my dictatorship (er, presidency) will be for me and the easier those years will be on you.

Get used to it.

The meeting of the Obama Brownshirts will now come to order.

Pass the Kool-Aid.

These numbers help explain why Election 2008 is competitive even though events so heavily favor the Democrats -- because the Republicans are on course to nominate their strongest possible general election candidate but the Democrats are not."

[ More - Rasmussen ]

Little did we know that this spineless, wimpy, whipped Congress would give Bush every single thing he ever dreamed of and more.

Don't let anyone tell you that the recently-passed FISA law is either a an "improvement" over the then-existing FISA law or a "compromise" on the part of the Democrats.

It is NOT an "improvement."

And it is NOT a "compromise" by the Democrats -- it is a complete CAPITULATION" by the Democrats.

Bush got more in this bill than he had even asked for.

SHAME on the Democrats who voted for this legislation.

Under the FISA Amendments Act [of 2008], to conduct surveillance involving a U.S.-based person, the government does not need to specify that it is targeting a specific individual. Nor does it need to specify to the FISA Court that the surveillance target is actually related to terrorism, though the threat of terrorism was the administration's stated reason for amending the 30-year old law - and also for violating its terms for five years under the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program."

And, there's this . . .

Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, said that the ability of the government to listen in without a specified warrant on communications it deems relevant to cases involving "foreign intelligence information" poses a threat to all journalists. "This law threatens their ability to gather critical information." vanden Heuvel said. "It also undermines the right of all U.S. citizens to engage in private telephone and Internet conversations without fearing that the government is listening."

The very fact that Bush and Cheney were grinning like Cheshire cats after the bill signing ceremony should tell you most of what you need to know about how much of a CAPITULATION this was on the part of the Democrats.

Also, the fact that only ONE Republican House member voted against this FISA bill ... all the other Republicans voted "for" the FISA bill (a small few didn't vote).

If you want to know why some Democrats voted "for" this bill, you might check to see how much money they got from the telecom giants for that vote.

Here's where you can see which House members got money from which companies, PACs and sectors: [ Open Secrets ]

You can enter any House member's name, over at the top right, to see where his or her money came from.
************************
Accountability Now and Strange Bedfellows: The strategy and rationale
by Glenn Greenwald - July 14, 2008

In the 2006 mid-term elections, Americans handed The Democratic Party a sweeping, staggering, and historic victory -- as the GOP was removed from power and Democrats given control over both the House and Senate. It marked only the third time in the last 60 years that there was a change in control of the Congress. The Democrats defeated six GOP Senators, and picked up 31 House seats. Six Governorships switched from the GOP to the Democrats. Not one single Democratic incumbent in Congress and not one Democratic Governor lost -- only the second time in U.S. history in which one of the major parties failed to defeat even a single Congressional incumbent from the other party.

Since that overwhelming Democratic victory, this is what the Democratic-led Congress has done:

• Repeatedly funded -- at the White House's insistence -- the Iraq War without conditions;
• Defeated -- at the White House's insistence -- Jim Webb's bill to increase the intervals between deployments for U.S. troops;
• Defeated -- at the White House's insistence -- a bill to restore habeas corpus, which had been abolished by the Military Commissions Act, enacted before the 2006 election with substantial Democratic and virtually unanimous GOP support;
• Enacted -- at the White House's insistence and with substantial Democratic and virtually unanimous Republican support -- the so-called Protect America Act, vesting the President with extreme new warrantless eavesdropping powers;
• Overwhelmingly approved the Senate's Kyl-Lieberman Resolution, to declare parts of the Iranian Government a "terrorist organization," an extremely belligerent resolution modeled after those which made "regime change" the official U.S. Government position towards Iraq;
• Deleted from a pending bill -- at the direction of the House Democratic leadership and at the insistence of the White House -- a provision merely to require Congressional approval before the Bush administration can attack Iran;
• Overwhelmingly enacted -- at the White House's insistence, and with substantial Democratic and virtually unanimous GOP support -- the "FISA Amendments Act of 2008," to vest the President with BROAD NEW warrantless eavesdropping POWERS and to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, all but putting an end to any chance for a real investigation and judicial adjudication of the Bush administration's illegal NSA spying program;
• Confirmed, with the indispensable support of two key Democratic Senators, Bush's nominee for Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, despite his support for radical Bush theories of executive power and his refusal to oppose torture;
• Stood by passively and impotently while Bush officials flagrantly ignored their Subpoenas and refused to comply with their investigations.

Poirot senses that somehow things are too neatly arranged, that something more complex is going on. He and the police are being inexorably led to a certain outcome….towards zero….but it doesn’t feel right, it feels like something more sinister is being stage-managed from the wings. Poirot is ultimately more intelligent than the killer, and so justice triumphs. But Poirot of course was a fictional creation. In the real world, we can only wish we had someone as smart, as logical and as honorable as the Belgian detective. Because we are heading toward a seemingly inexorable outcome–the nomination of Barack Obama–that is every bit as wrong, as insidiously managed and as filled with misdirection as Christie’s clever mystery.

I will maintain that the real goal of this entire election campaign has been the removal from the political arena of Hillary Clinton, and to a lesser extent, Bill Clinton. The actual people in charge of the plot may never be known, or it may be that they are a loose and informal coalition of people whose interests happened to coincide. They include powerful Republicans, big-money people, radical Democrats, those who control the American media. Each of these groups has its own reasons for wanting to destroy the power of Hillary Clinton. But their end goal is the same, and Barack Obama was simply the useful tool to accomplish it.

Let’s go back to the beginning of this campaign. Obama, a mostly unknown political figure, had immense amounts of money to spend. This wasn’t coming from $25 donations from the grassroots, as the shadowy manipulators would have you believe. It was coming from big money sources. Exactly who will never be known. George Soros, certainly. Penny Pritzker and her consortium. Possible foreign sources tapped by either of the former or their associates. And it is almost certain that some of this money came from Republicans who thought that Obama was the best bet to eliminate Hillary Clinton. Obama could be sold to the Democratic Left, since as a Black man, he fit the wish-template of many of its members. And he could be marketed as someone new, someone who transcended “the battles of the ’90’s,’ not coincidentally those that the Republicans had lost.

The exact motivations for all of this are pretty easy to intuit, even if they are somewhat amorphous. Behavior, as Freud said, is overdetermined; there are more motivations for an action than are actually needed for someone to perform it. Republicans certainly hated Bill Clinton, and by extension, Hillary. Some of this comes from their sense that they epitomized the “excesses of the ’60’s” (how strange that Obama should have that phrase so readily available), with their anti-war demonstrations, long hair and the like. Most of it came from the reality that the Clintons beat them at every turn. BIll Clinton not only won two terms, but he left the White House with the Democratic brand restored, and with a very good chance that the Democrats were poised to win another two terms. The Clintons are anathema to the Republican power elite. They have beaten every other candidate the Democrats have put up since 1968, except for Jimmy Carter, who barely squeaked in because of the Watergate disgrace, and even so was useful to the the GOP as a whipping boy for the next two decades. The Republicans always feared that Hillary could beat their candidate this time, so they poured money into trying to knock her out. They figured they could beat anyone else, once they got rid of her.

And the big money boys and girls had even more reasons to want to stop Hillary. They feared the fact that she was the one truly Progressive Democrat in the race; the candidate of the working people, the one who was willing to attack the oil companies and the big pharmaceuticals. She was the person who vowed to bring national health care to this country. She would protect the American consumer, the American worker and the American dollar. The big money boys and girls don’t want that. They want wages low, oligopolies left alone to raise prices and profits, to put out flawed drugs, dangerous toys, environment-destroying automobiles. They are seeing capitalism begin to destroy the lifeblood of this country, but they are still getting incredibly wealthy, and there are other places to live. There is still money to be made, and they need a President who will let them make it. So they had to get rid of Hillary Clinton. Edwards blathered on about two Americas, but he was mostly show, and he couldn’t get elected. Hillary could and would. So they gave Obama immense sums of money to help him knock her out. They could live with Obama as President, as he will do what the corporations want him to do. Because of his race, the Left was easily seduced into thinking that he was some kind of New Progressive, when the truth was that all his economic advisors came from the ultra-conservative, free market-oriented Chicago School of Economics. So they were safe with him.

The Left somehow thought that Hillary and even Bill were their enemies. They didn’t like “triangulation,” welfare reform, more police on the streets, the efforts made to mute the theretofore successful GOP lines of attack. They wanted ideological purity, and kept looking for the oddest people whom they delusionally thought would provide it: Jerry Brown, Ralph Nader, Howard Dean. Obama is the latest version of left-wing wishful syndrome, accentuated in his case because he is Black. The Left always yearned for a Black candidate, to somehow expiate their own self-imposed racial guilt and sense of White moral inferiority. So they were easy dupes for the plot; and some of the wealthier members gave large sums of money to Obama. In turn, many of the disaffected young people were easy to convince that Obama represented something new and fresh, never before seen in American politics. Obama was the messiah, or akin to it; someone who transcends race, politics, ideology, partisanship. The people who were behind Obama’s campaign, which was really the campaign to get rid of Hillary Clinton, did not harbor such illusions, but they were useful as tools to bring large groups of young people into the fold. And of course the media, some of which are still angry at Hillary for having fired their friends in the White House Travel Office back in 1992; others of whom were jealous of Bill, or who resented Hillary not being the kind of buddy to the press that George Bush was, were eager to show their power and pile on. And in so doing, they were accomplishing the aims of their corporate bosses, who could not afford Hillary being elected. If the working media convinced themselves that Obama was something special, or that it would be refreshing to get rid of the Clintons, so much the better for the ultimate goal.

The rest of the plot has played out as it was drawn up. The Democratic Party elders were also happy to have a chance to defeat Hillary; for their own self-aggrandizement goals, and because they thought they could much better control Obama. And of course there were those in the Party who also felt morally enhanced by being able to say that they were supporting a Black person for President. So the nomination rules and procedures all favored Obama. Interestingly, once we got to March, when the media and the Party bigshots were all essentially saying that Obama had won, and that Hillary should leave the race, much of the Obama money seemed to disappear. His fundraising past March has substantially fallen off. It seems to be getting worse every month. Is that because Hillary has been eliminated, and now the corporate forces don’t care which of the two candidates gets elected? Is it because the Republicans who sent money, and who also made sure that enough of them crossed over in smaller states and caucuses, where they could make a a major delegate difference in favor of Obama, have seen their plans reach fruition, and now don’t have any more interest in helping Obama?

It may even be that some of the most powerful right-wing Republicans would just as soon have Obama win, so that they can get rid of semi-maverick McCain, and “purify” their own Party. They figure that Obama would only last a term, and that they could easily vilify him and the Democrats so as to once again make Republicans the majority Party for years. In 2012, they can come back with Jeb Bush, or Newt Gingrich, or another ideological true believer, who will continue the Bush policies, and further bankrupt the working class. Some Republicans are actually frightened of an Obama presidency, so will support McCain. Some of them are actually having recriminations for having helped Obama at the outset. But the real corporatists, the real Machiavellian forces, are now very near to accomplishing the end of their plans. It is a little more than a month until zero hour, when Hillary Clinton is to be denied the nomination of her Party, and to probably be relegated to never being able to become President. If Obama is elected, she cannot reasonably be the nominee until 2016, when she will be 68. Rest assured that Obama will do everything he can to marginalize her, and render her as politically impotent as possible. He will thus be accomplishing the work of those who plucked him out of obscurity and set him up to be the Clinton killer, to do that which all the Republican money and media could not do in so many years. They have waited a long time for this, and we are heading towards zero. The economy is falling apart, inflation is rising, wages are stagnant. The stock market is plummeting, banks are going under, the dollar is dropping every day. But the one person who could possibly fix this; save the dollar, help the desperate working class, limit the corporate stranglehold on this country, is about to be eliminated from the picture, as surely as one of Agatha Christie’s fictional murder victims.

But almost amazingly, it is still not too late. There is absolutely an opportunity for Hillary Clinton to be nominated for President by the Democrats. And if nominated, she will almost surely be elected. All that would have to happen is for the superdelegates to do their job, and vote for the person who not only has the better chance of winning, but who has the far better chance of saving the country. Do that many superdelegates actually think that Obama has a better idea of how to lead the nation than Hillary, aided by Bill? Do they really look forward to the chaos which will ensue if Obama comes in with his additional deficit ballooning stimulus packages, his doubling of the capital gains tax, his plans to divert billions in funds to improving third-world nations? Do they really want to see how he deals with the many foreign threats; how he manages to overcome his obvious intellectual laziness and self-indulgence to spend the 18-hour days which would be necessary to work on the country’s many problems? Weren’t the superdelegates inserted into the nominating process to make such crucial decisions? If the superdelegates simply gave their vote to the candidate who got more popular votes, Hillary would be nominated. If they simply voted for the person who won their state’s primary, she would easily win the nomination. The only purported rationale that they could give for casting votes for Obama would be that he won more pledged delegates. But that is only because of undemocratic and illegally run caucuses. And even if one willfully ignores that truth, the idea that superdelegates are there to rubberstamp the pledged delegate count is utterly inane. Why would they be there if all they were supposed to do was to reiterate the pledged delegate count? Why would there be 800 or so of them, supposed to cast their nomination ballot in secret, if their duty was simply to see who got more pledged delegates, and vote for that person? Is this just some ego-trip for 800 people, getting to act important, but with no free will to decide? That is hardly what was intended. It is clear that the superdelegates were specifically put into the process to act as a possible counterweight to the primaries and caucuses, to only be significant in a close race when one candidate could not accumulate enough pledged delegates to render the superdelegate votes meaningless. They are the ones who are supposed to make their presence and insight felt in just such a situation as this one. The people who keep trumpeting that they “must not overturn the will of the voters” (note, not the popular vote, just the caucus outcomes), are being propagandists for their own side, the anti-Hillary side. The superdelegates can and should fix this injustice, this incipient nightmare. And they have the time and the opportunity to do so–but that time is rapidly running out.

In a little more than a month, the final gavel will sound. The plot–developed over time, and carefully planned–was the figurative political murder of Hillary Clinton. That is what this entire campaign has really been about, despite the misdirection. In both Parties’ debates it seemed as if every single other candidate was running against Hillary, instead of for something, including the needs of the country. Does anyone ever remember such an outcry for a candidate–particularly one who had won so many primaries–to get out of the race? That was the cry after the first Iowa caucus, back in January; and it has never stopped, no matter how well she did, no matter how much competence and skill she has demonstrated. “Hillary must be destroyed,” the incessant call, coming from so many quarters; far too coincidental to be just individual reactions. “Why won’t she leave?,” as if there were some overwhelming need to have one less candidate in the race, a race which is by rule and history supposed to only end at the convention. Even now, unceasing efforts are being made to force Hillary to bargain herself out, in exchange for money, a chance to speak, political sanctuary. Why is there such a desperate need to absolutely guarantee that she cannot be President?

Hercule Poirot would figure all of this out; would realize that this is not really about Obama, and what he might become; not about whether or not McCain can be elected. It is about the villainous plot to pull down the final curtain on Hillary Clinton’s bid to ever become President of the United States. That is and has been the ultimate goal of this entire stage-managed election process. When and if the final gavel sounds in Denver, and if Obama is the nominee, the plot will have succeeded. After that, it won’t much matter to the plotters whether Obama is elected, or McCain. The intended victim all along has been Clinton. The final evil act in this plot has not yet been committed, but we are rapidly heading towards zero.

[snip] On the New Yorker cover
Now Obama has called this photo “tasteless”. I was wondering, how would he know? He’s the most tasteless, base man I have seen Thug his way into a Presidential nomination in my not-too-short life. I’ll tell you what’s tasteless, Barky.

–Slapping your wife in the ass on national TV is tasteless.

–Telling the “girls” that’s a vibrating cell phone in your pants not your boner. Playing “99 Problems But A Bitch Is Not One Of Them” at a primary party. That’s tasteless.

–Telling a female pharmacist that you will give her a kiss if she wears your button. Offering to get on your knees if she will. That’s tasteless.

–Saying Bill Ayers is a nice guy. That’s tasteless.

–Telling Americans they are not only mean, but they have to give up their “pie”. That’s tasteless.

–Telling poor people who are trying to make ends meet to buy a pair of earrings with their stimulus check. That’s tasteless.

–Calling women Ho’s is tasteless. You want to insult women? Stick to your own Ho.

–Calling Rappers whose most used vocabulary word is Mothafucker geniuses. That’s tasteless.

–Sitting in a church for 20 years with a crazed minister who thinks America sucks is tasteless.

–Going to Germany to pretend you are worth more than shit on JFK’s shoe is tasteless.

If you ask me, Barky, The New Yorker depiction is So You and Michelle..

******
She uses her own choice of photos to show the astounding, jaw dropping similarities between JFK and Jackie Kennedy along side Barky and MoMo. We choose these because of the Nostradamus-like and deja vu quality of the similarities, I mean, it's got to be reincarnation. Imagine Chris Matthews getting all "tingly" and opining "Awww, they look just like Jack and Jackie Kennedy". Not only is Tweety a bona fide psychotic in serious need of a lobotomy, but he also needs a white cane and a dog.

The cover is so over the top it's hard to see it as anything other than satire and a commentary on the bigotry of a small and misguided section of the American electorate.

But that's not the view of the Obama campaign.

Senator Obama declined to comment on Sunday, but his campaign's national press secretary, Bill Burton, issued a statement saying: "The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

The McCain campaign also criticised the cover: "We agree with the Obama campaign; it's tasteless and offensive."

The New Yorker said the artist, Barry Blitt, "satirises the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the presidential election to derail Barack Obama's campaign".

But what really should cause the Obama campaign concern is the article inside. It details his rise to power in Chicago, portraying him as relentless in the pursuit of powerful friends and donors. Now, that will worry New Yorker readers.

[Ed. Note: So WHAT? Boo Hoo. Boy, they can sure dish it out but don't DARE criticize Precious in any way! If he had to put up with ¼ of the crap the Clintons have, he'd have everyone from shore to shore, investigated, arrested and sent to Gitmo. [ More - The Age ]

Steve Farber, a politically connected Denver lawyer, is the chief fund-raiser for the Democratic National Convention in August.

Mr. Farber’s vast contact list could prove crucial in raising the millions of dollars needed by the Denver host committee to showcase Senator Barack Obama and the Democratic Party in August in Denver. But Mr. Farber’s activities are a public display of how corporate connections fuel politics — exactly the type of special influence that Mr. Obama had pledged to expunge from politics when he said he would not accept donations from lobbyists.

For two years now, Mr. Farber has parlayed his love for Denver and his ability to call on a network of lobbying clients to help him with the daunting task of raising the $40 million, or more, that Democrats need to run their convention. As the host committee’s chief fund-raiser, he is on the phone 10, 20 times a day, twisting arms and cajoling potential donors — a task made more difficult by the fact that Denver has few hometown companies with enough resources to help foot the bills.

Yet, as Mr. Farber hops on planes, hosts breakfasts and pulls out the stops, he at least can draw on the resources of his law firm, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, one of the fastest-growing lobbying shops in Washington and one of the most powerful firms in the West, thanks to some recent strategic mergers that have only fattened his roster of blue-chip corporate clients.
[ More - NYT ]

RETURN TO: [ FEC HOME PAGE ]

We will not write-in Clinton, we will not vote Nader, we will not sit at home - and we advise everyone against doing either of the three. Such options, are wrong. Unless you believe in Obama’s promises, these choices are not conscionable, nor ethical- as they are all equivalent to voting for Obama.

The only way -I emphasize- the only way of assuring an Obama defeat in 2008, is to vote McCain.

Staying at home and not voting - you vote Obama.

Voting for a third party candidate (unless it is Clinton) - you vote Obama.

Writing-in Clinton - you vote Obama.

It’s your choice - either you vote Obama, or you vote McCain, but the only way to vote against Obama, is to vote McCain.

[snip]

As much as you may not relish or like it, voting McCain is the only way of assuring Obama does not win. Personally, I have trouble voting “Republican”- but I also know, that I have a duty to this country, which goes far, far, far beyond partisan politics. Just as I find it difficult to call Obama a Democrat, because my idea of a Democrat is closely associate a Bill or Hillary Clinton, I find some consolation in McCain’s strong history of independent judgment, bipartisanship, and the presence of other Independents and former Democrats, on his campaign. Better four years of a McCain, even with his war hawks, than four years of Obama, with his far more dangerous, and immediate threat to this country.
[ More - Stop-Obama ]

All this seems to have taken the New York Times completely by surprise. Which doesn't say much for the New York Times and their powers of journalistic observation given the fact that these things have been obvious to at least 18 million people for anywhere from 7 months to 5 years including the people who know him from Chicago, And it doesn't say much for the judgment of Gail Collins, the editorial page editor of the New York Times who either wrote or approved the editorial.

But what was most startling about this editorial was it's referral to Obama's LIES, DECEPTIONS, PANDERING, and RENEGING on pledges as "The New Obama".

To Collins this "New Obama" was confounding. She found Obama's DISHONESTY and the fact that he was talking out of both sides of his mouth and REVERSING himself on EVERY position he took during the primary "perplexing". And she is "distressed" to learn that Obama does NOT keep his word and PANDERS to whomever he happens to be talking to at the moment to try and get what he wants.

Calling him "The New Obama," the Times never makes the obvious connection to what 40 years ago was called "The New Nixon". This was the term Nixon used to forge his political comeback. Everyone saw through it and it was a joke because everyone knew it was the same old Nixon trying to repackage himself just as it is the same old Obama, who CONNED the people he needed to gain his primary advantage and is now trying to sell his snake oil to evangelicals and conservatives but telling them it contains a completely different set of ingredients than the snake oil he sold to Keith Olbermann, Arianna Huffington, Bill Richardson, Newsweek, and everyone else who bought it and drank it. And that's the difference.

While the old media never bought "the New Nixon" and saw through it, obviously this collection of journalists who seem to have the powers of observation of a drunken sailor on a Saturday night on Bali, led by Collins and the New York Times, has never been able to see through Obama. They think that what they're seeing now is something "new," instead of the same Obama so many millions saw through right from the beginning, though Bob Herbert a Times columnist and Obama supporter seems to be the first at the newspaper to actually start saying "wait a minute..."

The analogy of Obama to Nixon is valid from many different points of view since a case can be made that Obama is the most underhanded and dishonest politician since Nixon. Obama even has his own Helen Gahagan Douglas, the political opponent Nixon falsely smeared as a communist to win his first election, in Alice Palmer. Obama, using money and oppressive legal tactics challenging every name on Palmer's petition strong armed Palmer off the ballot in Chicago to win his first election. There is a similar attempt going on now in a more subtle way to try and keep Senator Clinton from putting her name in nomination at the convention which is not only her right but which democratic process demands given that as of this moment, there is in fact no official nominee of the Democratic Party since neither won enough delegates to secure the nomination. And there won't be any nominee until super delegates vote at the convention where, as the rules provide, they can cast their vote for whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish and are not bound by any previous declarations.

[snip]

According to the most recent poll, 54% of Clinton's primary voters said they will never vote for Obama if he is the nominee ( yes if), and if 54% are saying it, 75% are thinking it and possibly more will act on it. And even if it were only 50%, that still makes it impossible for Obama to win a single state and if a third stay home as they are saying they would, he will take the Democratically controlled congress down with him.So, to quote Jeremiah Wright the chickens could be coming home to roost.

With Clinton having her name placed in nomination the Democratic Party has an out. Whether super delegates will take it no one can know. But this makes it more important than ever for the Democrats to have Clinton's name placed in nomination and to have an honest roll call vote in spite of Obama's machinations to try and stop it. Because what we do know is that the New Obama, like the New Nixon will always be up to the same old tricks. And the New York Times, who closed their negative Obama editorial by actually quoting Obama's campaign slogan of "change we can believe in," can't seem to learn new ones.
Entire brilliant article
[ More - Tom In Paine ]

Rove quits the WH, the primaries begin, Hillary dead on favorite, cannot lose, cannot lose to any of the numb skulls the GOP has, NOW look. NOW LOOK. WE DEMS ARE VOTING FOR THE REPUBLICAN!!! The Dems have such a bona fide idiotic lying racist pig for a nominee we will vote REPUBLICAN. Why do you think his money has dried up now before the GE?

Rovian? Machiavellian is my word.

Rather, the insultingly false claims about this bill -- it brings the FISA court back into eavesdropping! it actually improves civil liberties! Obama will now go after the telecoms criminally! Government spying and lawbreaking isn't really that important anyway! -- are being disseminated by the Democratic Congressional leadership and, most of all, by those desperate to glorify Barack Obama and justify anything and everything he does. Many of these are the same people who spent the last five years screaming that Bush was shredding the Constitution, that spying on Americans was profoundly dangerous, that the political establishment did nothing about Bush's lawbreaking.

It's been quite disturbing to watch them turn on a dime -- completely reverse everything they claimed to believe -- the minute Obama issued his statement saying that he would support this bill. They actually have the audacity to say that this bill -- a bill which Bush, Cheney and the entire GOP eagerly support, while virtually every civil libertarian vehemently opposes -- will increase the civil liberties that Americans enjoy, as though Dick Cheney, Mike McConnell and "Kit" Bond decided that it was urgently important to pass a new bill to restrict presidential spying and enhance our civil liberties. How completely do you have to relinquish your critical faculties at Barack Obama's altar in order to get yourself to think that way?
[ More - Salon ]

In my entire life, I have never heard of an American presidential candidate electioneering in a foreign country, much less at the site of such a symbol of Nazi power, which is what the Brandenburg Gate is.

In addition to all the destruction Obama has done to the Democratic Party (and is poised to do to America), he is now causing rifts among German politicians who are divided on this issue. Some see it as inappropriately using Germany to electioneer and others are afraid to rile a person who might become the United States president, and it's not a good idea to anger U.S. presidents.

In spite of resistance from German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the local Berlin authorities have now granted Obama permission to hold his rally at the Brandenburg Gate.

BTW, President Kennedy did not give his famous speech at the Brandenburg Gate, he delivered it at Rudolph Wilde Platz in Berlin and then visited the Brandenburg Gate. Is this yet ANOTHER attempt by NObama to be JFK? Give it up, Barky. You are NO JFK and couldn't hope to hold his shoes. DOES he have a persona? Or does he never shrink from trying to be someone else?

Barky, you're no JFK, you insult any admirer of JFK's and any historian of American history by the comparison. Caroline Kennedy must be delusional or should watch some footage of her father to remind herself. She should be ashamed.

Merkel warns Obama not to use landmark for 'electioneering'
AFP - July 9, 2008
German Chancellor Angela Merkel slammed a request by Barack Obama to give a speech this month before the Brandenburg Gate as "inappropriate", her deputy spokesman said Wednesday.

The conservative leader said that while she would be pleased to meet the US Democratic presidential hopeful, it would be wrong for him to hold a "campaign rally" at the historic symbol of German unity.

"It is unusual to do electioneering abroad," spokesman Thomas Steg told reporters.

"It is unusual to hold election rallies abroad. No German candidate for high office would even think of using the National Mall (in Washington) or Red Square in Moscow for a rally because it would not be seen as appropriate."

Authorities in the capital have confirmed that Obama plans to visit Berlin on July 24 and is interested in speaking at the foot of the Brandenburg Gate.

The left-leaning government of the city-state, which has the sole right to approve such a request, has not yet made a formal decision but Mayor Klaus Wowereit gave his backing Tuesday.

Steg said Merkel had "limited understanding" for such a request and found the Obama team's initiative "a bit odd". But he said it was up to candidates such as Obama to decide what was "in good taste".
[ More - Breitbart ]

"ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS this June -- it's DEFINITELY within reach," Obama fundraiser Wade Randlett said last month to The Hill.

At the time the Obama campaign had not yet made its announcement it would not -- despite a previous pledge to the contrary -- make efforts to enter into the public financing system. But clearly it had been gearing up to do so. A decision rooted in a belief the campaign can raised significantly more than the approximately $85 million the federal system would have given it.

But in today's Wall Street Journal, Christopher Cooper and Susan Davis report that "June fund-raising for Sen. Obama appears to be falling BELOW the EXPECTATIONS of some supporters. The campaign hasn't released its June numbers, but people close to the fund-raising operation say the total will likely be just over $30 million. While this isn't a poor showing, it is an UNDERWHELMING haul for a campaign that has ballooned in recent months, has promised a true, 50-state electioneering effort and has told its biggest fund-raisers that it wants to collect $300 million in general-election cash by mid-October."

For some perspective, we should note that the campaign of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., raised $22 million in June.

Ed.Note : Ah, yes, but the GOP has $98 million in the bank while the Democratic Party has only $4 million in the bank. This is not good news for the down-ticket Democratic candidates, who will need all the help they can get considering that many Hillary supporters and more than a few former Obama supporters may not go to the polls to vote. This was supposed to be an easy victory year for the Democrats, but Obama -- with his nasty, lying ways -- may make it a good year for the Republicans. Obama is destroying the Democratic Party. Obama's version of "non-partisanship" is identical to that of Joe Lieberman ... it means that Democrats always surrender to the Republicans and make the Republicans happy. It means -- to Lieberman and Obama -- that a Democratic politician must jettison Democratic Party principles at the first sign of unpleasantness from the Republicans.

Obama used them to crush the Clintons, but now the left is finally realizing it's been betrayed, on issue after issue, with Obama changing his positions in order to defeat a tired and disillusioned Republican Party in November.

They're at the dance now and he's the one with the keys and he's the only ride they've got. And they don't like it.

He has flip-flopped again and again, on campaign finance, on government eavesdropping of overseas phone calls, on gun control and even Iraq. Future President Obama now says he'll listen to his generals about when to withdraw. He didn't say he'd listen to the commissars of the blogosphere.

And his cheerleaders are beginning to realize that Obama may not be the Arthurian knight in shining armor, that he may not be Mr. Tumnus, the gentle forest faun of our presidential politics. Months after his inauguration, after he makes Billy Daley the secretary of the treasury and Michael Daley the secretary of zoning and promotes Patrick Fitzgerald to become the attorney general of Mars, the political left may figure out that Obama is a Chicago politician.

"Only an idiot would think or hope that a politician going through the crucible of a presidential campaign could hold fast to every position, steer clear of the stumbling blocks of nuance and never make a mistake," wrote Bob Herbert in The New York Times. "But Barack Obama went out of his way to create the impression that he was a new kind of political leader—more honest, less cynical and less relentlessly calculating than most. . . . Obama is not just tacking gently toward the center. He's lurching right when it suits him, and he's zigging with the kind of reckless abandon that's guaranteed to cause disillusion, if not whiplash."
[ More - Chicago Tribune ]

Obama's rapid drop comes at a strategically challenging moment for the Democratic candidate. Having vanquished Hillary Clinton in early June, Obama quickly went about repositioning himself for a general-election audience--an unpleasant task for any nominee emerging from the pander-heavy primary contests and particularly for a candidate who'd slogged through a vigorous primary challenge in most every contest from January until June. Obama's reversal on FISA legislation, his support of faith-based initiatives and his decision to opt out of the campaign public-financing system left him open to charges he was a flip-flopper. In the new poll, 53 percent of voters (and 50 percent of former Hillary Clinton supporters) believe that Obama has changed his position on key issues in order to gain political advantage.
[ More - Newsweek ]

Therefore, I do NOT take kindly to being insulted, called names, pushed aside as irrelevant, or told by the Obama crowd that my kind is no longer needed in the Democratic Party.

When someone smacks me, I smack back.

And all the pleas to unite with Obama and forgive his vile supporters fall on deaf ears with me.

When Randi Rhodes (a big-time Obama devotee) called Hillary a "fu__ing bitch," she called all women "fu__ing bitches," except, of course, herself and anyone worshiping Barack Obama.

The silence from the Obama campaign was deafening. NO one in the Obama campaign said such an attitude did not represent the thinking of Barack Obama or that he wished people wouldn't speak and act like that, at least not on his behalf.

But Obama was silent.

Since Obama and his "lovely" wife stayed in their church for 20 years listening to -- but never objecting to -- Rev. Wright's sermons of hate toward white people, I begin to think that if my possible president and his wife hate white people, they hate me.

I don't want a president and First Lady who hate me for the color of my skin.

And, I haven't appreciated being told by Obama's supporters that any criticism of Obama comes out of my "racism".

Was I a "racist" for criticizing and despising George W. Bush for what he did to this country?

Was I a "racist" for criticizing and despising Ronald Reagan for what he did to this country?

So, how come ANY and ALL criticism of Obama, suddenly, in America, is proof of "racism" and the criticizer is "likely" a "member of the KKK"?

No, thank you, I do NOT want any part of the race-baiting Obama campaign. Obama injected race into this campaign because it was the only way he could win.

The Obama campaign used race as a CUDGEL with which to beat anyone who dared to mention that Obama had NO experience or knowledge of foreign affairs and NO experience or knowledge of economic issues, and that his campaign was filled with corporate lobbyists just licking their lips for their Main Chance once Obama was installed in the White House.

This campaign has been a travesty and has divided Democrats in ways that may not be healed for a very long time. As I said at the top, I am NOT an abused wife and I do NOT have "Abused Wife Syndrome," and I will not vote for anyone who permits his crowd to insult, berate, slur and destroy Hillary Clinton, me, or any woman.

Battered wives who succumb to the roses and apologies after being beaten,will only get more beatings when the batterer needs to prove something to himself; I will not enable, encourage or excuse the behavior of the Obama crowd during this campaign, so don't bother me with any sweet talk or apologies.

I don't like thugs, and I don't like people who like thugs.

I will NOT be voting for Barack Obama.

"Americans ought to be suspicious when a United States Senator such as Barack Obama, obtains a sweetheart mortgage deal," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. "We have serious concerns that Senator Obama's mortgage may have violated the law and Senate ethics rules." The group filed separate complaints with the Federal Election Commission and the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee.

Says Jackson JUNIOR in a statement: "I'm deeply outraged and disappointed in Reverend Jackson's reckless statements about Senator Barack Obama. His divisive and demeaning comments about the presumptive Democratic nominee — and I believe the next president of the United States — contradict his inspiring and courageous career".
   

Whether or not Barack Obama has a valid US Certification of Live Birth issued by the State of Hawaii is a side issue.

(A) He had one in 1966 and notarized copies of it exist in Jakarta, Indonesia.

(B) Hawaii issues Certification for those born out of State and indeed out of the Country and so do at least two other States, so it wouldn't prove anything anyway.

(C) He may have more than one Legal BC, ie he may have BCs in more than one country.

(D) Where he was born, ie in or out of the USA, is not the real Article II issue.He has, or had Dual Citizenship, which relative to Kenya and Indonesia is illegal under US and Foreign Law.

(E) A Citizen by Birth/Native Born Citizen is NOT the same thing as a Natural Born Citizen and never was. See: Letter from John Jay to George Washington July 25, 1787, Article II Constitution of the United States of America, The United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103), United States v. Rhodes, 27 Fed. Cas. 785 (1866) Justice Noah Haynes Swayne presiding, Amendment XIV, Constitution of the United States of America July 9th 1868, INA §349, 8 U.S.C. 1401, Sec. 301 Nov 1986 , UK British Nationality Act 1948, Kenyan Independence Constitution December 1963, Indonesian Citizenship Law No. 62/1958, etc, etc. No-one, including the Chief Counsel for the INS is precisely sure of what Article II does mean but only the Supreme Court can pronounce Authoritatively. If it meant what most people think it does, and it doesn't, it would be invalidated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 and International Law.

(F) If the alleged COLB presented by KOS and Fight the Smears is a Forgery it is a clear breach of the Law and if you can prove it is and if you can prove Obama is responsible he is in breach of the Law against Misprision of Felony, which is a High Misdemeanor, ie an Impeachable Offense.

(G) His Religion at Birth, the Marital Status of his parents, his Genetic make-up, and his Political Stance do not affect his eligibility.

(H) There exists good reason to suppose under all the Laws quoted above that Barack Hussein Obama is not or should not be eligible for the Office of POTUS. There is good reason to believe that under the Laws quoted above Barack Obama is either a Naturalized Citizen of the USA or is not a Citizen of the USA legally at all, regardless of where he was born or who his mother was and what citizenship she held. Under Indonesian Citizenship Law No. 62/1958, Obama's sister, Maya Soetoro Ng, cannot be other than a Naturalized US Citizen and under the same Law it seems highly probable that his mother was not a US Citizen at the time of her death and in all probability had not been one since 1967.

Jackson reportedly made the remarks after finishing an interview with a Fox News correspondent, and said he didn't realize his remarks were captured by a "hot" microphone.

In an exclusive interview on CNN on Wednesday, Jackson said his comments about Obama were "crude and hurtful" and he immediately called the Obama campaign to apologize after he realized what he had done.

Jackson did not specify exactly what he said, and CNN said the remarks were so crude that they could not repeat them on television, but several blogs reported that Jackson criticized Obama for sermonizing to African Americans.

Jackson reportedly issued an apology "for any harm or hurt that this hot mic private conversation may have caused." Jackson said, "My support for Senator Obama's campaign is wide, deep, and unequivocal. I cherish this redemptive and historic moment."

One blog, citing Fox News's Sean Hannity as a source, reported that Jackson slammed Obama for "talking down [to] black people on matters of faith." Hannity also suggested that Jackson said he wants to "rip Obama's nuts off" on the tape.

Hannity and O'Reilly will play tape.
[ More - Jackson Apologizes To Obama ]

It turns out that there is an interesting pattern where it concerns the blogs that Google's Blogspot team have summarily locked down on their service. They all belong to the Just Say No Deal coalition, a group of blogs that are standing against the Obama campaign. It seems the largest portion of these blogs are Hillary supporting blogs, too.

All I can say is, WOW! If Google is willing to abuse its power like this even against fellow leftists, what does it plan against conservatives, the folks Google hates even more!?

Here is a list of the Blogspot blogs that have been frozen by Google thus far

* Blue Lyon @ http://bluelyon.blogspot.com
* Come A Long Way @ http://comealongway.blogspot.com
* Hillary or Bust @ http://hillaryorbust.blogspot.com
* McCain Democrats @ http://mccaindemocrats.blogspot.com
* NObama Blog @ http://nobamablog.blogspot.com
* politicallizard.blogspot.com @ http://thelizardannex.blogspot.com
* Reflections in Tyme @ http://reflections-in-tyme.blogspot.com

Exhibit B - anti-Obama petition site owner THREATENED

By now, even the people living under rocks have heard about Obama's forged birth certificate. This is worrisome for a number of reasons. First off, that he and/or his campaign staff thought the general public was that stupid/gullible (well, on second thought, he DOES have a lot of supporters, maybe a lot of them ARE that stupid.), and secondly why on earth would they feel that they needed to submit a forgery? Is he a native US citizen or not? Or is this about his name? or his parent's religion? Either way, it is a reasonable thing to look at since after all, there is that little legal requirement that he be a native US citizen, and not just a naturalized one. One person put up a website for an online petition calling for the REAL birth certificate to be released, but within hours of it going up, someone, using the site operator's home address, left a veiled threat against the site operator and his family.
[ More - Threat Against Web Site Owner Re: Birth Certificate ]

W.O.R.M. = What Obama Really Meant

I'm sure I'm not alone in saying this but, how many times can one candidate get away with talking out of both sides of his mouth?

Like millions of Democrats, I was (and still am) shocked that BHO went to an evangelical magazine and told them he favors further restrictions on our reproductive rights. This... from a DEMOCRAT and a candidate for our party's nomination for the presidency.

Well I think he realized he blew it with us on that one, and has tried to clarify his earlier comments. In other words, he's issued one of those clarifications similar to the one he sent out to the Canadians over his NAFTA rhetoric. Before we get to that - let's take a look at what he told that evangelical magazine.
[ More - Alegre's Corner ]

I hear the Denver convention center where the Democrats will meet to nominate the Party's candidate for president isn't large enough to satisfy Obama's ego needs.

It holds "only" ten thousand people.

So, Obama is planning to give his "acceptance" speech in a stadium that holds 75,000 adoring Obama zombies.

We've seen "better."

Take a look at the old news films of Hitler's Nuremberg rallies; Hitler attracted the adoration of even MORE idiots than Obama attracts.

Hitler wins.

Hitler was even more popular than Obama is .. and I "hate" to be the one to tell Obama ... but his popularity is slipping ... his numbers are going down ... and Hillary's numbers are going up ... even though she has suspended her campaign.

It's NOT too late to change this nomination around and open the eyes of the superdelegates who -- by altering their plans to vote for Obama at the convention --- COULD cast their votes for Hillary ... and save this nation from a terrible fate.

*******

THE SCENE: Senator Barack Obama and America are seated in a large auditorium. Obama is sitting on the stage in a folding chair. A door in the back is marked “THIS WAY TO HILLARY CLINTON’S PLACE.” Another door reads “VOTE FOR JOHN MCCAIN.”]

AMERICA: Welcome, Senator Obama! We are soooooo ready to elect a Democrat this year, and we loved, loved, LOVED your speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. You are such an eloquent and intelligent guy…and your charisma is amazing! We are looking so forward to getting to know you better!

OBAMA (smiling): That was a wonderful welcome! Thank you, America!

AMERICA: No, thank YOU. We have some great candidates this year, and you’re one of them! So, tell us. Why should we elect you President of the United States?

OBAMA (standing up and pacing): Aren’t you tired of the same old Washington politics? Well, so am I. I’m not really a politician - I’m something new and different! I will unify all Americans so that we can work together to make our country a better place. We will finally get out of this partisan gridlock that has been preventing us from moving forward. Just believe in me and we can make it happen together! Yes, we can!

AMERICA: Oooh! That was really inspirational! [Iowa faints and Obama throws her a water bottle he just happens to have with him.] Okay, so tell us: How are you going to accomplish this?

OBAMA (smiling): Hey, don’t worry about that. All my policy proposals are on my website. You can tell I’m smart, right? I was the editor of the Harvard Law Review! Trust me, I know what I’m doing. I was right about Iraq, wasn’t I? And remember that Hillary voted for the AUMF. The Iraq war wouldn’t have happened without her!

[OBAMA'S CHAIR TURNS INTO A THRONE.]

[AMERICA mutters a bit. New Hampshire gets up and walks toward the CLINTON door.]

OBAMA: Hey, New Hampshire, where are you going?

NH: [at the door] Sorry, Senator - we like Hillary better. We prefer experience to soaring rhetoric. Plus, she seems like she really understands what we need and has a plan to make it happen.

OBAMA: I understand what you need! You need ME! I am a post-racial, post-partisan, unifying guy! How can you go for the same old politics? [NH IS GONE.] Uh, wait! Did you know that Bill and Hillary are racists?

AMERICA: [gasps] That’s awful! [90% of AA America stands up, chanting "Yes we can!"]

OBAMA: Ah, that’s better. [Florida, Michigan, New York, California and New Jersey get up and leave, shaking their heads.] Where are you guys going?

THE STATES [at the CLINTON door]: We like Hillary and we know her. You are new and inspiring, but you’re not giving us any reason to vote for you instead. We blame the war on Bush, not Hillary, and it’s not like you’ve done anything differently than she has since you’ve been in the Senate. Bye - good luck in the rest of the states!

OBAMA: [to the remaining states] Hey, folks, don’t let them bother you. They get down, periodically, and their claws come out. I’ll get her voters, but I’m not sure she’ll get mine. They’ll all vote for me in November. Yes, we can!

REVEREND WRIGHT COMES ON STAGE.

WRIGHT: Hi, America! I’ve been Barack Obama’s pastor, mentor and friend for 20 years. I baptized his children, I married him and Michelle, and he named his bestselling book after one of my sermons!

OBAMA: Uh-oh. [GETS UP, CROSSES TO REV. WRIGHT, TRIES TO DRAG HIM OFF THE STAGE. WRIGHT IS IMMOBILE AND CONTINUES TO SPEAK.]

WRIGHT: Yes, we are close close close! By the way, did I tell you that my church preaches Black Liberation Theology? And that I made fun of and insulted Bill and Hillary Clinton from the pulpit? And that I said “God Damn America” just a few days after the attacks of September 11th? And that I think the government gave black people AIDS? And that I think Louis Farrakhan is a great guy? And that Italians are garlic noses? Believe it or not, there’s even video of me saying these things!

OBAMA: Who is this man? I am shocked, shocked to hear him talk this way! Well, I admit I’ve heard some controversial stuff from him, but wow - this is really too much! I’m not disowning him but I’m disowning what he said. And by the way, my grandma was a racist! Oh, I mean…not a racist, but a typical white person! Come on, stop bothering me about this stuff. Can’t I just eat my waffle?

OH, TX and PA: Oh, HELL NO. [they get up and start walking towards the CLINTON door]

OBAMA: But wait! I’m the one running for President, not my pastor! [WRIGHT BEGINS EDGING OFF THE STAGE.]

OH, TX and PA [at the door]: Come on, Senator. You’ve got to believe some of what he says, or else why would you be such a devoted follower of this man for 20 years? You don’t share our values, and we know that Hillary does. We’re voting for her.

OBAMA: Ahhhh, who needs you. You’re just bitter, bible-thumping, gun-slinging, xenophobic racists. [TX, OH and PA gasp, then stomp out the door.]

[WRIGHT COMES BACK ONSTAGE AND STEPS IN FRONT OF OBAMA.]

WRIGHT: Hey now! Barack is just saying what he’s saying because he’s a politican. We know this, right, America? Of course he can’t disown me. By the way, isn’t it great when I say how white people have no rhythm, make fun of how they talk, and expound on my theories that they are left-brained and black people are right-brained?

[OBAMA PUSHES WRIGHT OFF STAGE.] OBAMA: That does it! This man is not who I thought he was. I disown him completely! And by the way, I’m still NOT a politician!

[WEST VIRGINIA gets up, shakes its head, and walks towards the CLINTON door.]

OBAMA: Hey! Where are YOU going?

WV: You’ve gotta be kidding with this Wright guy. And by the way - we are not bitter, ignorant or racist; it’s just obvious you have no idea who we are or what we want from a President. Buh-bye now!

OBAMA: [looking at the auditorium, which is a lot emptier than it was before] Uh, what about the rest of you? You’re with me, right? Hey, Kentucky - look who’s backing me! John Edwards! Did you know, he was the son of a mill worker?

KY: But why should we vote for YOU? John Edwards is not running for President any more.

OBAMA: Because you need change! You need hope! You need faith! See, look - my new flyer says it all!

KY: No, we need jobs. We need solutions. We get hope and faith from ourselves, not from our President. We want Hillary! [KY GETS UP AND WALKS OUT THE CLINTON DOOR.]

OBAMA: [to himself] Well, hell. This is a lot harder than I thought. Maybe I can’t win this thing after all?

[HOWARD DEAN and DONNA BRAZILE step forward. As they do, all the states that left enter through the Clinton door and stand in the back of the auditorium.]

DEAN: Don’t worry, Barack. We’ve got this thing all planned out. You WILL be the nominee no matter what happens. After all, we’ve got the convention scheduled on the same day as Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech! Do you think that’s a coincidence?

BRAZILE: Yeah, don’t worry about a thing. I made sure that MI and FL didn’t count so that you could look like a front-runner, instead of following the DNC rules that stated the penalty was a 50% cut in delegates. You’ve got it in the bag!

AMERICA [all together]: WHAT? Are you Democratic Party Leaders saying you don’t care what the voters think - that Obama is your guy no matter what? That’s not democracy at all! What the hell is wrong with you?

[ALL THE STATES GET UP AND WALK OUT THE JOHN MCCAIN DOOR. THE AUDITORIUM IS EMPTY.]

[DEAN, BRAZILE and OBAMA look at each other in shocked disbelief.]

OBAMA: What the hell happened? Why didn’t those idiots vote for me? John McCain is just the same as Bush! We Democrats were favored by a huge margin nationally! What is wrong with them - are they racists or something?

[HILLARY CLINTON enters through her door, shaking her head in disgust. BILL CLINTON is with her. They hold hands.]

HRC: Perhaps we can explain it to you.

BILL: You see, the American people don’t like to be talked down to. They like to be asked for their votes, not taken for granted.

HRC: Women didn’t appreciate all the sexism you and your surrogates directed at me. And to call the “first Black President” racist was unforgivable to many.

BILL AND HRC TOGETHER: You never asked them what they wanted or needed. You never listened to them.

BILL: We thought you’d learned the lessons of my Presidency by now. But you’re just as elitist as the Republicans. You threw me and Hillary under the bus, and now you’re paying the electoral price.

[THEY WALK OUT THE CLINTON DOOR.]

DEAN: Well, there’s always 2012, Barack. Hey, how about you and John Kerry?

[LIGHTS OUT.]

Not only is Obama failing to gain Hillary’s supporters, his support from registered Democrats has dropped from 59% to 54% [ CNN Clinton Poll ]

A growing number of Clinton supporters polled say they may stay home in November instead of casting their ballot for Obama, an indication the party has yet to coalesce around the Illinois senator four weeks after the most prolonged and at times divisive primary race in modern American history came to a close.

According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Friday, the number of Clinton supporters who plan to defect to Republican Sen. John McCain’s camp is down from one month ago, but — in what could be an ominous sign for Obama as he seeks to unify the party — the number of them who say they plan to vote for Obama is also down, and a growing number say they may not vote at all.

In a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey completed in early June before the New York senator ended her White House bid, 60 percent of Clinton backers polled said they planned on voting for Obama. In the latest poll, that number has dropped to 54 percent.

Now why could that be? The new gets worse, according to CNN:

In another sign the wounds of the heated primary race have yet to heal, 43 percent of registered Democrats polled still say they would prefer Clinton to be the party’s presidential nominee.

That number is significantly higher than it was in early June, when 35 percent of Democrats polled said they preferred Clinton to lead the party’s presidential ticket.