Saturday, May 31, 2008

Decisions, Decisions

The spousal unit is off getting the ingredients for mojitos at the moment, and I'm reflecting on the events of the day. We followed the live blog of the meeting via TalkLeft (which appears to be crashing under server load at the moment - give it some time) plus Marc Ambinder's blogging of it. There are a lot of tea leaves at the bottom of the cup.

The 50% solution for Florida was disappointing, but not the worst that could happen. They still get added into the total votes needed, Hillary is able to formally count the popular vote there as part of her total, Floridians will support her in the fall and will punish Obama.

The solution for Michigan is thoroughly bad news for Obama. The state's popular vote is legitmated, allowing Hillary to claim it, the 50% penalty removes "teh rulz!" as a talking point weapon (as it does with Florida) (note to FITH Obama trolls - the rulz have officially changed so you can stfu now), and the squabble over a mere 4 pledged delegates indicates that they are worried about the delegate count, enough so that they would reassign votes to try to force their way through.

Speaking with my political scientist hat on, penalizing the states' delegations by reducing the impact of their votes may vex Clinton supporters, but it is within the powers of the DNC to do so. The reasons for the penalty (to tilt the win in favor of one candidate) and the context of the penalty (failing to penalize other states who committed similar infractions) and in the case of Florida, refusing to take into account the extentuating circumstances of Republican interference with the timing of the vote are elements that will provide grist for dozens if not hundreds of Poli. Sci. PhD dissertations in the years to come, but the power itself is within the charter of the organization and the appropriate committee(s).

Taking away delegates from Hillary and handing them to Obama, however, is not within their purview, and this will come back to bite them in the ass. First, as I said above, it indicates that the internal count of the Obama delegates is weaker than they claim. Four delegates should not make that big a difference, yet they obviously do even with the count reduced by the 50% rule. There is no other rational reason to force this misallocation for such a small number of delegates, given the blowback that will occur. Of course, given what we have seen of the Obama campaign, stupidity, arrogance and an inability to resist trying to humiliate an opponent are hallmarks of their operation. Whether or not Hillary can capitalize on this for the convention, rest assured that the Republicans will do so for the general election, even if Hillary is the nominee. The Party has deliberately reapportioned the outcome of an official and certified election. They may have had the power to deny seats to the resulting delegation at all, allow seats but no votes, allow votes but reduced by a percentage, or seat them with 100% voting privileges, but they do not have the power to modify the allocation of delegates within the delegation.

Doffing the poli sci hat, the joint announcement of the decsion of the RBC and of Obama's resignation from TUCC says put a fork in him, he's done. The question for me was whether he hoped the attention on the committee would keep people from noticing the church announcement (if yes, it failed), or whether the church announcement was a distraction from the committee announcement, which sounds more likely to me. Better a focus on the scandal which the campaign will try to spin as a strength, than on the committee hearings, which exposed to the full light of day the manipulation of delegates to favor a candidate in decline.

Blanchard was phenomenal in the hearings, and very clearly made the case that Obama had maneuvered himself out of delegate support in Michigan. Brazille looked and sounded like a mean-spirited jerk through the entire thing, Wexler was a buffoon, and someone must have gotten to the Obama contingent at lunch and told them how bad it looked for them. I hazard a guess that is why the meeting did not reconvene on time, though that is also when the TUCC announcement was made, so there are more explanations than outcomes.

The reason I am concerned about the battle over the four Michigan delegate votes is because there is no valid procedure for that reallocation, and alleged Democrat "vote fixing" is one of the Republicans' standard arguments against the Democrats. It is used to push through restrictive voter ID and onerous voter registration rules, and it is used as an excuse to purge voter rolls and install thugs at voting palces to "discourage voter fraud". It is used deliberately to undermine minority voting in Democratic districts, and the Republicans will gleefully seize on this one very egregious act of disenfranchisement to serve up a toxic mix of racism - see what happens when "those people" (i.e., non-whites, in this case AAs, but also applied to Hispanics and Asians) start calling the voting shots? They just rearrange things to promote one of "their own kind."

Why is this a really bad thing in the current election cycle? Because the new issue on the Republicans' radar is Affirmative Action. (Gee, I wonder why they picked that theme?) There will be state measures on the ballot in Colorado, Nebraska and Missouri, just to name a few states where Obama is allegedly competitive. Add this crude and blatent vote manipulation to the mix, and the Republicans now have a big campaign issue handed to them on a silver platter.

As for the TUCC decision, this is another example of Obama's bad judgment, wanting to have his cake and eat it, too. He wants to be considered a unifying figure, yet hang out with trash-talking divisive people who scorn the people whose votes will decide the election. When he finally has it shoved in his face that he can't have both, he jettisons the friends in a public way that does not resolve the issues that association raised in the first place. I'm not as incensed about the bullshit spewed by the various preachers at TUCC as other people are. I'm really not into beating people up for personal associations. The political deals cut with Rezko bother me far more. However, what matters here is the stupidity of thinking that these associations would not be made into political issues, and the lack of preparation in creating distance between himself and TUCC, Rezko or Ayers/Dohrn when it should have been done. Cynical? Sure, but accurate. It's the same way I look at Bill Clinton's affair with Lewinsky; that he had an affair is not my business, that he had one when he was under scrutiny and it damaged both him and the party sure as hell is my business.

The Obamacan faction of the party has made its decision today: it is more important to claim the nomination than to win in November. That is where their priorities lie. Hillary may or may not be able to convince enough super delegates to give her the nomination, but it is clear what the decision before the party is.

Do we retreat and allow the coup to roll on, or do we fight back for the future of the party?



Anonymous said...

I cannot begin to tell you how disappointed I am in the Democratic Party and its Rules Committee's decision on how to seat the Florida and Michigan. How can you decide to only seat some of the delegation or to take away their votes? How can you decide to award delegates to people who weren't even on the ballot in Michigan? What on earth is the party doing? What message does the party send to its members and to other citizens in the United States when it strips away the votes its citizens? It DOESN'T matter that you warned the states not to move up their primaries!!! You don't punish the elected officials and state parties who made the BAD decisions by stripping away the votes of your party members!!! How does that make sense? How short sighted of you all - after the voting scandals in Florida in 2000, especially! I cannot see any way around this - I used to wonder why people voted against their own best interest - i.e. why poor people would vote for Republican candidates, etc? I am starting to understand. It becomes clearer to me every day that the party elite and their groupies who control this party are out of touch with reality and are more concerned with their own position and status within the party than they are with doing the right thing or caring for their party members. Bye! Good riddance. You won't get any support from me in the future - I've made that mistake for the last time. I will not reward your irresponsible behavior with support in any way, shape, or form - no matter who your candidate is.

Chinaberry Turtle said...

Anglachel, I'm a little confused b/c I haven't been on the Internet much, or watching TV at all, for the past week. What is "the TUCC decision" that you refer to? Sounds like I missed something big. What happened? If anybody else could answer, I'd be much obliged. Just don't have much time lately to go hunting all over the political blogs like I used to.

Anglachel said...

Obama has formally left his church.


Anonymous said...

Like Turtle, I don't watch news TV and my Internet reading is restricted to 5-6 blogs. (In my case it's not last week, but all the time).

So, all the news heard is the final decision. To me it means:

1. Obama must the nominee no matter what.

2. Hillary is treated as a non entity at best and as a pest otherwise.

3. Hillary voters will turnaround and if they wont, Obama has enough to win in November.

As a result of this three points, the following follow.

a. Let's make Obama as strong, in delegates, as we can without causing an earthquake.

b. Healing is not needed, Obama has the votes.

c. Pelosi and Reid will finish Hillary off in short notice and the whole thing will be history.

d. If Hillary goes to the convention, we will find way to block her delegates from being a factor.

Anonymous said...

Anglachel, I hope you'll allow me to use today's post a little early.

I don't understand the committee's rationale for awarding those four Michigan delegates to Obama. Could you outline it for us -- even if you think it's entirely spurious? I can't find a clear explanation in the news coverage.

Otherwise, today's outcome seems basically fair to me. I would have vastly preferred that the DNC fund new primaries in these states -- especially in Florida. I would have also been okay with seating the entire delegation (though the legal argument for this looks pretty tenuous to me).

But I do have some questions about your post, too. You write (1) that "the reasons for the penalty [were] to tilt the win in favor of one candidate" and (2) that the DNC did not penalize "other states who committed similar infractions."

With respect to (1), how is this true when the committee stripped the FL delegates in August and the MI delegates in December -- when Clinton was clearly in the lead nationwide and in most big Dem states? (This was also before the big "working class" divide, when several prominent MI politicians were Obama supporters, and when some observers would have predicted Detroit and some other MI cities -- like Flint -- to go to Obama.) This is a sincere question; I'm sure I've missed your evidence about this elsewhere.

With respect to (2), what are these other states? The only other one of which I'm aware was Deleware in 1996, which was stripped of all of its delegates as far as I know. Again, I've probably missed your discussion of this elsewhere, so maybe a link is all I need.

Chinaberry Turtle said...

Good god, I just saw the Pfleger video. What is wrong with Obama supporters? They've basically won the nomination. Just be quiet and win. Just shut up and win. But no - these people (from rich white Starbucks liberals to the Hillary hating MSM to the utterly insane TUCC church) just can't shut up. They aren't content with winning. They've got to also brutalize and humiliate Hillary. Winning isn't enough.

Well to heck w/ you Obamacans. I cannot WAIT to write in Hillary in November. I've got the popcorn all ready. The couch is just waiting for me to sit back w/ popcorn and beer and watch Obama's woman-hating journey come to the withering defeat it rightfully deserves.

Enjoy your Hillary hatred now Obamacans, b/c I'll be feeding it right back to you in November. Yeah, I'm low and petty that way (unlike Hillary). Deal with it.

Cathy said...

Well somethings. You will probably be proven right on everything. However, tonight I have some quibbles.

1. It matters - in my mind - that they are calling Floridians 1/2 voters. That resonates with voters. (Nor did the Clinton folks expect to the supers to get cut in half.)

2. He took the four delegates just to humiliate her. He cannot stop himself from doing it. Though he looks like a bigger jerk for it.

3. Something is up with the church or Father Pfleger. (Folks at no quarter are bragging about a new tape -- Michelle? Maybe he'll toss her next.)

4. I hope Hillary hangs in there even if they have the new number 2118 at end of Tuesday.

Our new slogan must be until balloons drop.

Anglachel said...


1. I'm not saying I agree with or approve of the 1/2 person apportionment. I don't. I think allocating partial people has cultural resonances that a significant number of people will find offensive, not just HRC supporters. But I want to draw a clear distinction between what the party has the legal right to do and what they lack the right to do, which is reapportion a delegation.

2. I don't know why the four delegates were apportioned to him. I'm inclined to believe ego because of what else I have observed, but it could be need. It could also be that the DNC wants their pound of flesh from Michigan, which would be even *more* stupid than an individual candidate trying to get more for himself.

3. I would be *very* wary of any video that purports to show a prominent person of either campaign saying or doing something objectionable. Remember the doctored Mickey Kantor video. The term "whitey" doesn't ring true to me as something Michelle Obama would say, so I am deeply sceptical that she said anything of the sort. I do expect that there will be a video of her saying something that will offend some people, but my first thought when I heard the original claim was "doctored video".

4. Hillary said she was going to the convention, and I trust that she will. If Obama has the delegates, she will make some kick-ass concession speeech after the first vote. She is not going to concede while there is still so much doubt about Obama (such as the Rezko trial, more revelations from TUCC, something else unsavory), and this will prevent anyone else *cough* Edwards *cough* from cutting in line should scandal intervene between now and August.

I see Hillary already planning for the 2010 mid-terms and the 2012 presidential. We still don't know who McCain's VP choice will be and that affects 2012.


Anonymous said...

I am exceeding my comment quota just to say that I have now found the rationale for the Michigan delegate shift, which I thought I would share with you (without commentary -- though I suspect I agree with you and most of your readers about this).

From the WaPost article:

Michigan Democratic chairman Mark Brewer and Sen. Carl M. Levin, representing the state, asked for their full delegation to be reinstated with full voting powers. But, calling their primary flawed, they recommended an allocation of the delegates based not only on the results but also on exit polls and an estimate of uncounted write-in ballots.

On the basis of those calculations, they said Clinton should receive 69 delegates and Obama 59. Clinton's campaign called for allocation based on the primary, giving her 73 delegates to Obama's 55. Obama's campaign said the delegation should be split 50-50 between the two candidates but did not take a position on whether the Michigan delegates should receive a full vote or half vote.

The Michigan Democratic Party proposal drew skepticism from members of the rules committee. "It seems to me that this way lies chaos," Elaine Kamarck said. "That if we start setting precedents that state parties can take a little bit of data from a primary and some data from exit polls and some data from assumptions they made, that we're really in trouble."

But in the end, the committee decided to set aside those qualms.

During the first session, Ickes pointedly challenged Levin over the Michigan plan, saying it would strip Clinton of delegates she had rightly earned through the primary. "Why not take 10?" he asked indignantly. "Take 20. Just keep on going."

"You're calling for a fair reflection of a flawed election," Levin shot back. "And what we're trying to do is keep a party together so we can win a critical state in November."

Anglachel said...

missplsd, this post stands. It is very informative - thanks for hunting the info down.


Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Chinaberry Turtle said...

So I've read up on the Florida/Michigan DNC thing that happened today. I just don't care anymore. I just don't care.

The Republican Party is against me, it always has been. And now, as I've discovered this primary season, the Democratic party is against me as well. The only entity FOR me and my concerns is an individual person named Hillary.

It's really idiotic what the DNC did here. NOBODY, not even the Obamacans, look at the delegate count as some genuine, celestial, objective gauge as to who should be the winner. It's become ridiculous. This whole primary has become completely absurd: some made-up game where instead of having "chits" we have "delegates" and instead of rolling dice we have caucuses.

The whole thing is farcical. Everybody has staked out a side in this fight independent of whatever the delegate count is. The remaining super-delegates who have not decided are surely NOT looking at the delegate count anymore.

Does anyone REALLY believe there is a single undeclared super-delegate who is sitting there saying to him/herself: "Well, I need to wait to see what the official, objective, celestial delegate count is before making my decision." Of course not. They are all waiting around and trying to make their decision on lots of different stuff (e.g. TUCC fallout, Rezko, etc.), but I sincerely doubt that, at this point, the delegate count is a factor.

The delegate count is now like Paris Hilton. It's famous for being famous.

show me said...

I'm willing to fight for the party.I just can't imagine at this time what form it will take. It seems to me that an Obama win in November would seal the deal given Obama's strong arm tactics and obvious vindictive personality. I don't really see that it is possible at all that he will win.I don't know if you have seen that great gutsy "Harriet" video yet but she is NOT coming back in the fall. She spoke for many people.

Do we work for our local downticket pols and look to 2012? There are some really good people in my county and I am not ready to abandon them.My county voted solidly for Hillary.

Is the best thing to start a Hillary write in campaign? That is definately what I will do. Or does that go to the meme already started by the MSM that it is her fault that Obama loses?

I do think Hillary is on the cusp of staring a movement. She has been so incredible the last few weeks. I think she has been freed in some respects and is showing us who she really is and what she really cares about. This just breaks my heart!

Tonight, all I can think about is how to punish the press, the DNC and Obama.It all started out so good and ended up so bad.

orionATL said...

"and the squabble over a mere 4 pledged delegates indicates that they are worried about the delegate count, enough so that they would reassign votes to try to force their way through."

i am baffled by the significance of this to the dnc.

i wonder, though, if this "solution" is nothing more than agreeing with a "compromise" that michiganders (and michigooses - emptywheel will not be happy with me) agreed on some time back.

otherwise, the conflict about four votes makes little sense.

the problem is that making this concession leaves the dnc with precisely the problem they hoped to avoid -

unhappy voters with a legitimate claim that the dnc played games with their votes and with voting numbers.

SM said...

I have a question about today's events. Even as a hardcore Hillary supporter, I have to concede that the Obama campaign knows a thing or two about strategy. They know and understand the rules and they have been extremely intelligent in manipulating the rules, conventions and the politically sensitive pressure points to their own advantage. That is why their strategy today baffles me.

Stealing four delegates from Hillary (reduced to 2 because of the half vote) will not make the slightest bit of difference to Obama in the total delegate count. The bar for getting the nomination has been raised simply by seating the delegates of the two states. Yet, they pushed this hard to get her four delegates.

This at a time when they desperately need to mollify Hillary's supporters - the DNC and the rest are aware that there is much anger. So why did they do this? They are willing to buy two delegates at the cost of the tremendous resentment this has caused? At the cost of strengthening the case for Hillary taking the fight to the convention? All of this for two delegates? What's up folks?

Normally I would be tempted to say that this is foolish. But we know that of all things they are, the members of Obama's core team are not fools. Makes me wonder if they are desperate for another reason?

pm317 said...

Why is this a really bad thing in the current election cycle? Because the new issue on the Republicans' radar is Affirmative Action. (Gee, I wonder why they picked that theme?) There will be state measures on the ballot in Colorado, Nebraska and Missouri, just to name a few states where Obama is allegedly competitive. Add this crude and blatent vote manipulation to the mix, and the Republicans now have a big campaign issue handed to them on a silver platter.

Wow, this is so telling! So the GoP can point to the Dems and say how they forfeited a stronger candidate to give us the affirmative action candidate through vote manipulation. As usual, Anglachel, you have a keen eye.

I am taking my disappointment at today's happenings out in my own way.

What happened with MI at the R&B today is unconscionable. Obama STOLE 4 delegates from Clinton and got 55 more for FREE. There is no way to forgive this. FL should have had all of its delegates and as another commenter pointed out there is something terribly ironic that a Black man has argued and settled for half votes from this delegation.

I and my husband just finished changing to “unaffiliated” and will mail the forms on Monday. I also am sending a copy of it to DNC with you know what? A Special Comment.

We will be voting for McCain in Nov and that will be 4 votes Obama has to steal from somewhere else. The desire to punish these corrupt party elites is strong right now.

Shainzona said...

I vote for FIGHT, DAMN IT!

I've pulled out my charge card and am ready to go!!!

CognitiveDissonance said...

Chinaberry Turtle, you're exactly right. What they did today just underlines how tainted pledged delegate counts really are. Quite frankly, they are a farce. We all know how undemocratic caucuses are, and how few votes it takes to get 1 caucus delegate compared to 1 primary delegate. But now we have delegates awarded to someone who wasn't even on the ballot. And on top of that, delegates taken from the winner who WAS on the ballot. You really can't get any more tainted than that. Pledged delegates are in no way a valid reflection of this election.

Then we have the popular vote count. If delegates were fairly apportioned, they would closely follow the popular vote count, which is the *REAL* indication of who the voters are behind. But we have the opposite. The popular vote winner is behind in pledged delegates by over 100. And yet he is the one who is supposedly ahead. This sounds like something out of Orwell to me.

jacilyn said...

I feel betrayed by my party. I never realized I felt this way, but deep down I always believed Democrats really were better than Republicans. (I know - silly.)

I will fight for the party if that is an option. Either way, I am fighting for the values that I thought were what the Democratic party was all about. To me, it's synonymous with what we used to call "the American dream", back when people still spoke of such things. Equality. Opportunity. Justice for all. The chance of a better life and a better world. Stuff like that. I will go to whichever party reclaims those values - right now neither party seems to care.

I'm so glad Hillary kept on fighting though. Even if she loses in the end. She's got my full admiration for that.

Teresa said...

I really think the 4 Delegates were about punnishing Hillary. For whatever reason, these folks at the Dee-En-Cee will do anything in their power to hurt the woman. I don't think it has much if anything to do with Obama needing or not needing them. They just want to hurt the woman. Of course, they've no idea how much hurting her hurts them. I don't think they realize in their wildest dreams how serious we are.

Anonymous said...

After some time passed, I found myself unconvinced by the exchanges on the DNC decision. Many of the comments have also found some decisions baffling. For instance, why take four delegates from Hillary in Michigan. Levin's attempts to count exit polls must a first in human history and he mixing it up with party unity somehow is too bizarre.

Then I realized that the DNC forum is very much like show trials in dictatorships. The pretense of fairness, the pigheadedness of the authorities, the bombastic announcements, the clowns that run it, etc.

We all knew well in advance that the decision will tilt towards Obama. The only surprise was the Michigan four (delegates taken away from Hillary and given to Obama). But then, this was a show trial; the iron fist was present behind the scenes and manipulated the show.

This the first presidential election cycle, as far as my limited knowledge goes, where whiffs of fascism are permeating the air. I don’t believe that even the Republicans have stooped that low.

gendergappers said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Horselover Fat said...

The 4 delegates are taunting, like an end-zone dance. And,they advertise how much the rules committee is in the tank for BHO.

Obama looks even more immature and narcissistic than GWB.

Liz E said...

You've tangentially brought up another point I hadn't considered until now. If Clinton were to win the nomination and the White House, the DNC and other Democratic fixers (see definition: tools and hacks) will follow this standard line of argument:

Well, we would have won it anyway. It has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton - the local dogcatcher could have beaten a Republican this year. And thus they will roundly discount any victories by a woman candidate, Hillary Clinton in particular, and will not cooperate with her in governing. These bloviating scions will excoriate their own and we'll see the same type of bafflingly stymied government as we had in the early 90's - a Dem congress thwarting a Dem president. And then it will bring on the 'contract for America' comeback by the Rethugs again - which remember ironically occurred during an economic recovery! It wasn't the economy during that election - it was Democrats self-destructing.

Note that I predict little better from an Obama administration, as I believe that would be easily outmanuevered by the minority party in congress and K street. (But in my view, Obama will never be president if he's the Dem candidate.)

I see a McCain administration as easily able to spin a majority Dem congress as obstructionist, and thus able to rebuild his party.

With any outcome of the November election, the Dem congress and its party leaders will set themselves up (through continuous party wrangling and disunity) for a Republican comeback in 2 years.

Geezo, I hate my crystal ball. It's been right waaay too often in the past year. Democrats - self-destructive and sexist - a big tent party my ass.

Anglachel said...

NOTICE: I have removed several comments I consider obnoxious. Gay slurs, comparing specific people to animals, and similar snark annoys me and makes me think you're a moron, so don't post it on my blog.

quaker21 said...

Outrageous. You cannot reapportion the vote. You cannot.

And to see so many Obama supporters calling this fair or even or "MDP Approved!" misses the point.

Reapportioning votes via delegates is a perversion. You. Cannot. Do. It. But now, since it's been done, apparently it's more "You shouldn't do it."

C'est la vie! But I will not take that anymore. I decided to go straight to YouTube with my resentment of this situation and the DNC.

The comments I've gotten back sure have been illuminating. This isn't about a zero sum war. It's not even about Clinton/Obama. It's about perverting the vote, and instead Obama supporters say that's satisfactory.

It. is. not. I would have preferred 0% and them taking the PR heat for not counting it than to say "this is what you REALLY meant."

DEM said...

I don't understand why I keep seeing the number 4. The number of stolen delegates was 59. Can someone explain to me where this "handful" idea came from? The HRC position was NOT, as the WaPo indicated, a 73/55 split; it was 73/0/55 split.

Anglachel said...


You call Hillary Cinton a liar, you regugitate Obam talking points and you whore your blog, all of which annoy me. Bye-bye.


dstartz said...

As I watched the Rules Committee yesterday I had to wonder how they couldn't see:

1) that they were being the hand maidens of the RNC by helping the FL Republicans win, once again, in their efforts to stifle the voice of FL Dem voters

2) that if OB was so brilliant in his abilities to foresee W's abuse of the congress's 'Iraq' decision why wasn't he able to foresee the MI debacle and leave his name on their ballot (or or possibly he did...)

I believe the Rules Committee had the responsibility make the voice of the the Dem FL voters heard rather than to follow the letter of the DNC rules. Sometimes the spirit of the law is far more important to follow than the letter of the law.

Their decision on the MI delegates defies the true voice of the Dem MI voters which leaves me wondering for whom the Rules Committee is really concerned about speaking. I feel sure in stating that it isn't for people like me.

Thus, I have pulled my monthly contribution to DNC and have made a donation to Hillary's campaign so that she and her supporters can take this to Denver and hopefully the TRUE voice of the Dem party will be heard.

And should OB be named the Dem nominee my husband and I will either be writing in Hillary's name on our ballot or voting for John McCain.

Anonymous said...

I read the comment by the young Michigan voter (perhaps he's just young-looking) about how he's been slimed by the Obama supporters for putting up a You Tube video (which I've watched, and will recommend to my family and friends) about how he feels about the delegate "reapportionment" (actually: theft) that occurred yesterday at the DNC.

All I can say to this young gentleman is this: right on, brother! Right on!

You are absolutely right, and I am deeply sorry these wounded souls (that's the kindest term I can call the Obama people) can't see it. If they were in your position, they'd be probably rioting in the streets; instead, you've posted a dissenting voice, something that is quite legal in this country -- and they've done their best to be obnoxious, rude, and show their overly entitled attitude.

And for what?

Anglachel, I've read your blog for a while but haven't commented; I applaud both your blog and your honest appraisal of what's going on.

This cannot be allowed to stand.

How can we put a stop to this?

Shainzona said...

lsekhmet: Do you have a link for that video. I'd love to see it.

Greenconsciousness said...

But did you hear WHY the Obamas resigned from Trinity?

"Because everything that happens over there - even the speech of a visiting pastor will be attributed to me (BO)"

BO totally ignored his connection to "the visiting pastor" as if we are as stupid as he obviously thinks we are.

Shainzona said...

But but but...everything is about Obama, don't you know!

Greenconsciousness said...

See more on Trinity here including a Reuters picture that shows media bias for the Chosen One: