Advertisements

Girl, We Got Robbed!

Most of us have conveniently forgotten just how closely Obama squeaked by to win the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination. Hillary was 333 delegate votes away – a margin of less than one percent – from being the nominee.  She could have been even closer.

If delegates from Florida and Michigan had been given the full strength of their votes, instead of only half-votes, Hillary would have been closer since she won both of those states.  Instead, DNC chair Howard Dean claimed both states held the primaries too early and should thus get less weight in deciding the nominee.  These were not “pop” primaries, like a pop quiz.  They were announced.  And then they were ignored, out of political convenience.  Michigan and Florida voters got cheated out of the full strength of their votes.  Funny, millions of voters were punished when the date of the primary in each state was decided by just a handful of political elites.

I know.  It’s even more tragic than this outfit.

If superdelegates – so super that it’s 100% legal to bribe them for votes! – were not a part of the nominating system, Hillary would have lost by just over 100 votes.

If the Democratic primary had been decided according to GOP primary rules, then Hillary would have won. If the primary had been decided by popular vote, Hillary would have won.

It was that close. And it was this corrupt:

Reports the Canada Free Press: “High school students in Gary, Indiana were given the day off of school and bused to the polls to vote for Obama, elderly women in Iowa were denied admittance to the caucuses if they were wearing Hillary stickers and caucus delegates in California were pressured to illegally change their votes from Hillary to Obama.

And what did Dean do to address fraud of such immense proportions that we literally have an illegitimate President sitting in the White House? Nothing.”

Details are now emerging to support the idea that Obama, Clinton, or both were on the Indiana primary ballot illegally, as a result of forged signatures.

But isn’t there some kind of organization, some regulatory body that’s set up to make sure things like this don’t happen? Yes. It’s called a party convention. “As DNC Chairman in 2008, it was Dean’s job to make sure the Democratic primary election and caucuses were conducted lawfully.”

So why the heck don’t we hear more about it?  Because Howard Dean clearly wanted Obama to be the nominee. (If not, he did a darn good impression of someone who did, what with all the ignoring anti-Hillary corruption).

Stop it, Howard!  WE are the ones who should be this angry.

There is no telling what the 2008 general election would have looked like had McCain gone up against Clinton instead of Obama. But I’m going to play Devil’s Advocate here: Let’s say Hillary won.

What kind of an incumbent President would we have now?  She may have enacted a new version of Hillarycare.  Maybe she would have really closed Gitmo. Maybe she would have made good on campaign promises to reform social security, achieve long-term stability in Iraq, and upgrade early childhood education. These are all things that have widespread bipartisan support. Obama has accomplished none of them. (The only one he seriously attempted – Early Childhood Education – has been acted upon in only one state.) We will never know what Hillary would have done if she had the chance.

The New Republic says Hillary wouldn’t have wavered on the war the way Obama did; she would have decisively ended it by either withdrawing troops or finishing the job for good. The New York Times says she would have taken a tougher stance in negotiations with Congress. Dick Cheney, of all people, says she would have been a stronger bipartisan bridge-builder than Obama.

No matter who you ask – everyone believes Hillary would have done things.  Probably not good things, but big things nonetheless.  She would have shown the leadership that President Obama has failed to demonstrate.  She probably wouldn’t have spent three months playing golf. (Note: If anyone wants to tell me what they think Bill would have done as First Dude, the comments section is waiting for you. Let ‘er rip!)

The GOP would be up to bat against an incumbent with a proven track record.  We would have had real change – for better or for worse, but absolutely for further debate in the general election.  Instead, we are running against an empty suit.  We do not know what Obama can do because we haven’t seen him do much of anything: Politifact clocks Obama’s broken promises in at 56 and counting.  Gallup reports that the percentage of Americans who believe Obama is a strong leader has been declining steadily since he took office.

The GOP has no idea what to fight against, because the opponent has been hiding behind sweeping rhetoric. Obama is still running on hope. Without a track record to fall back on, his campaign will soon be running on empty.

Angela Morabito :: Georgetown University :: Washington, DC :: @_AngelaMorabito

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Dawnsearlylight says:

    Angela, when he ran in 08, he had a record of voting ” present”. He has a real record now, but he still has the media, hollywood, and the schools. The politicians are crooked and hope we don’t realize it.

  2. Early Childhood Education might have wide Democratic support, but it does not have wide bipartisan support. Conservatives are not in favor of confiscating money from taxpayers to support programs that further increase the government’s ability to mold young minds. Government school students hear enough propaganda in K-12. Most conservatives would favor allowing taxpayers to keep more of their own hard-earned money so that a woman may choose to stay home with young children, if she so desires.

  3. Kerry Davis says:

    If you’re saying that Hillary would have “accomplished” enough to get herself re-elected to a second term, then I think it’s likely that we dodged a bullet as that saying goes. One term of failed Barry does less damage to the country – and the world – than two terms of “successful” Hillary.

  4. I’m saying Hillary would have accomplished enough to run on her track record – it wouldn’t have been good – but that’s the point. Sometimes things may have to get worse before they can get better ( Think of the state of affairs that got this country to elect Reagan). Obama has done terribly – the difference is that the Dems and their media are hiding behind “hope” and “yes we still can” instead of trying to defend his abysmal record. Should they try to defend his record, they would lose. Hillary would have at least been bullheaded enough to try to defend her record – and that would mean a conservative victory come November.

  5. Kerry Davis says:

    Hillary’s record of accomplishments wouldn’t have been good for the country, or good in the eye of conservatives, but actually ending the war(s) right away, actually closing gitmo, and maybe a few other things, would have been supported by the left who have little if anything to support for Obama. So it seems to me that Hillary would have had a much better chance of being re-elected by DOING more bad things, than Obama has by PROMISING to do bad things then failing. Because their side WANTS those bad things to be done! Hillary actually doing them, would not be seen by them as failing, no matter how bad the actual results.

What Do You Think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: