The blog that must not be named:
What’s important here is that half of the Democratic Party are now in exile.
Last time I checked, nearly 80% of Democrats said they would vote for Obama, and we still have just over 4 months to go. That is hardly “half” I would say.
But don’t worry, there’s more:
But that’s only the beginning of the shock and distrust now apparent in millions of (former) Democrats, the infamous 18 million Hillary-supporters. Among the great majority, there seems to be a consensus that the entire Democratic Party itself has been seized in a hostile takeover….
DownListen responded with “I think the fix was in before the primary.” And Carol, another blogger boldly states:
I have asked repeatedly on other sites, “Do we have the right to see all of the communications between Dean, DNC and Obama camp?” I believe the fix has always been in from the beginning.
So the “vast majority” of Clinton’s 18 million voters think the party was taken over in a “hostile takeover?” So if every single one of the 22% of Democrats who say they won’t support Obama believe this, saying that this is half of Clinton’s voters means that…..Clinton only got 44% of the vote. Doesn’t that mean she lost?
Also, these people have now become eqivilent to Freepers and Vice Foster conspiracy theorists with all this. So the primary was fixed before hand? The first questions to ask would be 1) What the hell for?, 2) How could they even fix it? and 3) If you can even answer the first two questions, why would the DNC spend that much time an energy on it, given that they’re at such a cash disadvantage against the RNC anyway?
The answer to all of this is, of course, their person lost and they don’t want to admit it. The fact that people started to coalece around Obama at the end of May is easy: because he was obviously about to become the presumptive nominee. PUMAs may like to whine that “there is no official nominee until the Convention” but really, you didn’t hear this in 2004 or any other time for that matter. The only other people you might hear it from are Paulites.
Meanwhile, they’re still going on about both Obama’s Certificate of Birth and Larry Sinclair and will probably only give up when Obama comes down from Mount Sinai with stone tablets saying that it’s not true (but then how do we know that those aren’t fake!).
Basically they’ve taken the position of “We have the right to ask these questions, no matter how aburd they are, and Obama must prove us wrong, and if he does anything other than that, then that shows that we’re probably right!”
So despite all evidence to the contrary, Obama must prove he was born in Hawaii, even beyond what a court of law would require and he must prove a guy wrong – a guy which has no proof, is a convicted felon, had as of last week at least two outstanding warrants for his arrest, admits heavy cocaine use, failed a lie detector test (but that was staged too), and easily has the incentive of money and attention to just make shit up. But Obama is required to prove him wrong.
Basically I could say “I saw Obama eating babies on the night of August 23, 1991 in a bar in Dodge City, Kansas” and they would rally around it and be like “OK Obama, prove this wrong! If you don’t, then you are obviously an admitted baby eater!”
I’m just wondering what these people will say when Clinton and Obama have their joint campaign rally. They’ll probably bring up the old “she was blackmailed into it!” allegations again. They’ve already used it against her before as well as against Al Gore.
Update:
P.S.: No one has still shown how, exactly, the DNC, or anyone else for that matter, “stole” enough delegates away from Clinton to give the nomination to Obama. All they can come up with are vauge “well, the DNC must have fixed it all along” statements. Basically the Democratic Primary equivilent of 9/11 “it was an inside job!” people.
