- As it stands at this moment, unless Sen. Hillary Clinton
continues her campaign for the Democratic nomination until the Party's
convention, there is no presently visible chance that the U.S. will come
out of the presently skyrocketting hyperinflationary crisis in any form
easily recognized as being, still, our Constitutional republic. The attempt
by the powerful, and also predatory financier groups which have sought
to crush Senator Clinton, as they had attempted to destroy the nomination
of President Franklin Roosevelt in Hoover's favor in 1932, has the smell
of a serious attempt at fascist dictatorship all over it.
- What is most alarming about this today, is the mafia-style
pressure which Howard Dean's office, and the super-rich Obama campaign
have put on Senator Clinton to resign here and now, at a time when the
tallies on primaries to date, including that in Florida, show her to be
still very much a leading contender. There is the smell of something very
evil in the role which Obama and others are playing on this account.
- The facts of the matter as they stand on Friday morning,
May 9, are as follows.
- The Numbers Just Don't Add Up
- In the period between Hillary Clinton's overwhelming
defeat of Barack Obama in the critically important state of Pennsylvania
on April 22, and the opening of the polls in Indiana and North Carolina
on May 6, every poll in the nation showed that momentum was very clearly
on Clinton's side. Obama, whose candidacy had yet to face a serious defeat,
was clearly badly shaken. Things only grew worse for Obama when his longtime
pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, made a highly publicized appearance at the
National Press Club, and uttered some of his most controversial remarks
to date. Obama did ultimately cut the wrong Rev. Wright lose, but did so
only after Wright turned his polemics against Obama for not defending him
more strongly. In the eyes of both the press and the pundits, Obama handled
the affair badly and appeared to be melting down.
- That view seemed to be proven by both public and private
polls. Clinton held an unwavering double-digit lead over Obama in Indiana,
a state that shares a border with his home state of Illinois, and which
he had long been expected to win. In North Carolina, where Obama was once
as much as 30 points ahead, opinion polls showed that Clinton had whittled
that seemingly insurmountable lead down to 6-7%. Then, the election polls
- There were some very troubling features to the way voting
was structured in each state-features that should have served as red flags
to ballot security experts. In North Carolina, largely as a result of a
massive drive by the Obama campaign, a record 272,000 registered to vote
for the first time this year. Eighty percent of them were Democrats and
independents, both eligible to vote in the Democratic primary; in fact,
those who registered as "unaffiliated" or independent, comprised
the vast majority of the new voters. Another 31,250 voters switched their
party affiliation so they, too, could vote in the Democratic primary. The
vast majority of those individuals switched to "unaffiliated"
- Isn't bringing new voters into the process a good thing?
Of course it is. But, what should have been troubling to those charged
with guaranteeing fair and honest elections, especially in a state that
is still under the watch of the Voting Rights Act, is that over 300,000
new voters were now eligible to vote (and by all accounts did vote)
in a Democratic primary election where ultimately 1.5 million voted, and
the vast majority of those 300,000 were not Democrats. Ultimately,
contrary to press reports that secret Republicans in both Indiana and North
Carolina were casting ballots for Hillary Clinton, when the votes were
tallied in North Carolina, Republicans who voted in the Democratic primary
supported Obama by a startling 13-to-1.
- For those monitoring the vote count after the polls closed,
things grew more and more confusing. From very early in the evening, as
expected, Obama had, and held, a solid lead in the Raleigh-Durham area,
which is dominated by colleges and universities. But Raleigh-Durham only
accounts for 29% of the voters eligible to vote in the Democratic primary.
For most of the night, both candidates were within a point of each other
in both eastern North Carolina, which accounts for 23% of the vote, and
in Charlotte (22%). In Greensboro (17%), although Obama took an early lead
in the city itself, Clinton was winning in the surrounding area. In the
less densely populated western part of the state (10%), Clinton held a
double-digit lead. In fact, in the rural areas (western North Carolina
is included in this group), that comprise some 47% of the vote in the state,
Clinton was either leading Obama or within one point of him. Then, suddenly,
within approximately 17 minutes, all the numbers, save those in the West,
inexplicably changed and Obama gave one of the earliest victory speeches
in North Carolina history, claiming 56% of the vote. Election analysts
are still trying to figure out how the sudden shift occurred, and some
are still arguing that the numbers just don't add up. But, the nation's
attention has already shifted to Indiana.
- Indiana Vote Stumps the Experts
- The Indiana Democratic primary was open to all voters,
regardless of party affiliation. 1.6 million voters ultimately cast ballots-of
the 1.3 million votes cast in the Democratic primary, 200,000 of them were
voters of "undetermined" party affiliation. Despite the bellowing
from Rush Limbaugh, who is presumably drug-free following his latest stint
in rehab, that he was leading a charge of Republican voters for Clinton
in an effort to "sabotage" the Democratic primary, the results
show that in Indiana, as in North Carolina, the independents and Republicans
who voted in the Democratic primary voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Despite
the fact that Clinton held a solid lead of 7-9% all night long, the TV
networks inexplicably refused to declare her the winner, arguing that they
would not do so until the votes came in from several counties in the northwest
corner of the state, one of which included the city of Gary, which was
expected to go to Obama. It seemed odd. The total population of Gary is
about 103,000, half of them under 18. Even if every registered voter in
the city voted for Obama, it would not have been enough to change the ultimate
outcome of the election.
- Obama conceded Indiana to Hillary long before the networks
did, and she gave her victory speech at about 11:30 p.m. EDT. Long after
all the speeches were given and everyone turned in for the night, the tally
shifted. An attempt to deprive Clinton of a win would have been too reckless,
but her lead somehow diminished to just two percentage points. Again, election
analysts were stumped. Clinton took 84 of the state's 92 counties. Although
Obama won the urban areas, those areas only comprise about 30% of the vote.
In the suburban and rural counties, which comprise 70% of the vote, Clinton's
lead ranged from 8% to 32%. The next morning, when Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh
(who is, admittedly, a Clinton supporter) was asked on CNN how he could
account for such a close race between Clinton and Obama, Bayh said that
he couldn't account for it at all, and asserted that a recount would likely
show that Clinton had indeed taken the state by a far larger margin.
- One could argue that, ultimately, the results were what
everyone expected. Obama took North Carolina and Clinton took Indiana.
However, the press played it as a crushing defeat for Clinton and began
speculating on when and how she would make a "dignified" exit
from the race. And, according to all reports, the pressure on undeclared
superdelegates to declare for Obama, and for those already pledged to Clinton
to switch allegiance, became excruciating.
- Despite the clamor, Hillary Clinton, looking bright,
refreshed, and nothing like a loser, appeared before a rally in Shepherdstown,
West Virginia, and continued to hammer away at the issues that have defined
her campaign, "This election is about solutions, not speeches,"
she declared. When she continued, shouting out "High-speed rail! Mass
transit! Water systems!" the crowd roared its approval. She's expected
to win the next round of primaries in West Virginia and Kentucky by very
sizeable margins. Yet, the calls for her to drop out continue to build,
arguing that the numbers show she can't win. But, those arguments aren't
based on reality.
- The Threat of Disenfranchisement
- By the close of business on Friday, May 9, Obama had
picked up the support of five additional superdelegates. ABC-TV declared
that Obama had taken the lead among the superdelegates and most of the
pro-Obama blogs carried banner headlines asserting the same. In fact, though,
Obama now has 1,592 elected delegates and 268 superdelegates for a total
of 1,860, to Clinton's 1,424 elected delegates and 272 superdelegates for
a total of 1,696 delegates, making it a very close race.
- Clinton detractors had argued from the start that she
could not take the nomination without a significant vote from the superdelegates.
And, while that is true, the fact is, that neither can Obama. The nominating
process is designed in such a way that any presidential nominee must attain
a majority of the elected delegates and a significant portion
of the superdelegates. Just what that number is, however, has become the
source of major controversy. Obama, and Democratic National Committee (DNC)
chairman Howard "Scream" Dean, have declared the threshold number
of delegates to take the nomination to be 2,025 (based on a total number
of 4,049 delegates), and Obama has indicated his intention to declare himself
the Democratic nominee on May 20, after the primaries in Kentucky and Oregon,
where it is expected that he will reach that number.
- If Obama does so, it will be a premature declaration.
The 4,049 delegate count does not include some 368 delegates from Michigan
and Florida. In January, Clinton won both states by very wide margins,
but Dean stripped both states of their delegates, for holding early primaries
that he did not sanction. Democrats from Michigan, where Obama took his
name off the ballot, have proposed a compromise, in which delegates would
be apportioned between the two candidates, that is currently under consideration.
The Florida case is far more problematic.
- Both Clinton and Obama were on the Florida ballot, which
accounts for 185 elected delegates and 26 superdelegates. Florida Democrats
had no say in the setting of the date, which was established by the Republican-dominated
legislature and governor, and turned out to vote in record numbers. They
also voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. But, regardless of whether one supports
Clinton or Obama, to disenfranchise some 2 million Florida Democratic voters
who came out to participate in the electoral process in good faith, is
not only unfair, it is illegal. Also, given that Florida Democrats feel
that they have been disenfranchised in the past, they are unwilling to
allow it to happen again.
- A vocal group of some 600 Floridians, led by their Congressional
representatives, the Hispanic organization LULAC, and members of the Building
Trades union rallied in front of the DNC's Washington headquarters May
7, and have scheduled additional demonstrations in major Florida cities
throughout the month of May. The speakers at the Washington, D.C. rally
made clear that if the Florida delegation is not seated intact, they will
disrupt the convention. There is also the very real possibility that Hispanic
delegates from other states would join such floor demonstrations.
- Best Interest of the Nation?
- The issue is the key item on the agenda when the DNC's
Rules and By-Laws Committee meets on May 31. Based on the nature of the
issue, and the composition of the committee, it is expected that, at the
very least, they will seat the Florida delegation. If that occurs, it is
likely that the Obama campaign will take the issue before the Credentials
Committee, which will have jurisdiction over the question beginning in
mid-June. But, until the issue of Florida and Michigan is resolved, nobody
knows what the threshold number of delegates needed to secure the nomination
- The other issue, of course, is the question of how the
approximately 850 superdelegates vote. At first, the Obama camp attempted
to discount their role, since they seemed to heavily favor Clinton. Then,
the argument was put forward that the superdelegates must follow the lead
of the pledged delegates in their respective districts. That argument was
joined by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
But, it seems that they only apply that argument to states in which Obama
won the majority of the elected delegates.
- But, the Party rules on the question of the "automatic"
delegates, as the superdelegates are called, couldn't be clearer. Whether
the automatic delegates publicly or privately support a candidate, they
are outside of the rule that binds the elected delegates to vote (at least
on the first ballot) for the candidate whom they were elected to represent.
When political analyst James Carville was asked to comment on the scramble
for superdelegate endorsements, he explained that "A superdelegate
commitment today and four bucks will get you a cup of coffee at the Ritz-Carlton."
Not only are they not bound to vote for any candidate, regardless of what
they may or may not promise at any point prior to the convention, the very
purpose of designating automatic delegates in the first place, according
to party rules, "is to give our convention more flexibility to respond
to changing circumstances, especially when those changing circumstances
might make the voters' mandate less clear. The automatic delegates are
expected to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation
and the Democratic Party."
- That would seem to make a strong argument for Hillary
Clinton to remain in the race until the convention in August. She is expected
to make a strong showing in the remaining primaries, and regardless of
whom the superdelegates endorse today, the convention is a long way off,
and it would seem that they are expected to cast their votes based on the
circumstances at the time of the convention, and not before it.
In the midst of the rapidly worsening economic conditions, given Clinton's
continued focus on economic issues, and the lack of any substantive economic
policy proposals to date by Obama, the automatic delegates might do well
to abide by their own rules.
- Additionally, if they are indeed to "exercise their
best judgment in the interest of the Democratic Party," given that
virtually all polls show that Clinton can beat Republican John McCain while
Obama cannot, one would conclude that, at the very least, they should remain
publicly uncommitted until the convention.
- Although all these arguments seem rational enough, none
of them are reflected in the news media, or the statements by so-called
leading Democrats. If one were to draw a conclusion based on their utterings,
"Hillary Clinton is toast."
- Why So Desperate?
- One cannot help but wonder why Clinton's opponents seem
so recklessly desperate. Why not just let the electoral process run its
course? Why not let all of the voters have their say and then proceed to
the August Convention? If the Obama camp is so confident of a win, then
why are automatic delegates, particularly African Americans, coming under
such excruciating pressure? Why are so many promises of money and appointments
(most of which will never be met) being made?
- Unimpeachable sources very close to the Clintons have
reported that the morning after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries,
calls were made by individuals, recognized as high-ranking members of the
U.S. political elite, informing the Clintons that, "while this was
not necessarily [their] position," they wanted it passed along that
under no circumstances would Hillary Clinton be permitted to take the Democratic
nomination, and that, if by some miscalculation, she did take the nomination,
she would never be permitted to take the Presidency. Apparently, the messages
concluded that, if, by some unanticipated occurrence, she were to actually
go ahead and win the Presidency, it would be the shortest-lived Presidency
in the history of the United States. The message was explicit: The combination
of Hillary and Bill Clinton in the White House meant a Presidency
that would simply wield more independence and more power than they were
willing to tolerate. Undoubtedly, Clinton's continual pledge to represent
the lower 80% of the U.S. population, and the unspoken fear that some of
her policies seem to lean too far in the direction of the proposals put
forward by Lyndon LaRouche, have lowered their toleration level.
- The point seemed to be underlined in a none-too-subtle
cartoon in the May 9 online edition of the London Times. It shows
Hillary Clinton laying face down, arms spread, eyes bulging. The American
flag is the backdrop, but one of the stars has fallen, its point lodged
deep in her back.
- Note also, the widespread, and undisputed, reports that
top officials of the Obama campaign have offered to pay off the financially
strapped Clinton campaign's $15 million campaign debt as well as the $11.43
million that Clinton has loaned her campaign organization, in return for
her shutting down her campaign. The offer comes at the same time that Clinton's
finance committee has insisted on a meeting with the candidate next week,
in what some believe will be an attempt to force her to withdraw.
- The fact is that Obama, although his campaign has raised
sizeable funds, does not have the capability to make good on
an offer of that magnitude. A payoff of that size could only be made by
the powerful financial forces tied to the City of London that have backed
the Obama candidacy. It is a blatant and illegal attempt to shut down Clinton's
candidacy and to proceed with a completely orchestrated U.S. election.
- So far, Clinton has remained steadfast in her commitment
to continue her campaign. Individuals close to the Clintons don't see her
bowing out at this point. James Carville, who is personally close to both
Bill and Hillary, told Newsweek, "If Hillary Clinton gave Obama
just one of her cojones, they'd both have two." Hillary Clinton
is tough and she is certainly no quitter. But the issues at stake here
are far bigger than any individual's candidacy or even the election itself.
Those who are attempting to shut down the Clinton campaign and control
this Presidential election have no allegiance to Democratic Party, or to
the United States. They are acting as agents of a dangerous foreign influence.
If they were to succeed, the U.S.A. will have lost its sovereignty, and
there would be very little hope for the continuation of civilized life
on this planet.