Something smells fishy

First off, there's a great post (with video!) about Obama supporters campaigning INSIDE polling places, which everyone should know, especially them, is I-L-L-E-G-A-L. And a blog about the entire weirdness that is Indiana voting.

Watching CNN regarding the IN primary. Anyone who was watching should know that Lake County (the one next to IL) didn't have any precincts reporting until after 10PM PST. Average of several polls had her up by at least 5 points, yet it's all of the sudden a nail biter. Hmmmmm, I'm not exactly convinced that this is above board.


Good analysis from BDBlue:
He’s making it look worse.

The Mayor of Hammond says they knew what the machine votes in other cities were at 7:30. It’s midnight and we don’t have any information and it looks bad. This looks improper. I’m not saying it is, but it looks. We don’t need this kind of negative exposure in Lake County. He’s telling the Mayor of Gary to release the numbers.

Here’s a question, why does the Mayor of Gary have the ability to hold the votes.

Now the Mayor of Hammond is trying to get the Mayor of Gary to tell why he hasn’t released the machine votes. Mayor of Gary says it’s absentee counting. Mayor of Hammond is grilling him. Has no answer why it is taking so long to count the vote.

Now they’re reporting 98% of the vote in Lake County, Clinton still leads by 22,000 votes with 99% of the state reporting.

So maybe it’s not fraud, the Mayor is just an idiot. Or else it is fraud, they realized they were going to get caught and stopped it.

You know you've got a problem when the mayor of another large Indiana city is questioning just what the hell is going on with your ballots and you have no explanation whatsoever. Seriously. Why did they have to take them to the airport? That sounds super shady to me. The hold up was the absentee ballots? What about the electronic results? Is it really a "Chicago county?" Because that's not what you want to import from Chicago.

I seriously hope I'm wrong, but hey Mayor Rudy Clay what the fuck happened in Lake County? I'm not the only one who wants to know.

More at By the Left, and Talk Left has stuff here and here

I will add updates (like video/transcripts/etc) as the become available. First there was FL and MI, the the TX caucuses, now IN? Who are we? The republicans?

Why we won't quit.

Hillary Clinton raised $10 million in 24 hours

There is a post from the pro-Obama Huffington Post about The top 10 weaknesses Obama has against McCain in the GE

6. Barack Obama hasn't won a single major industrial state that historically constitute the key "battleground" states for both parties, i.e., the states in the last three or four presidential elections have switched back and forth between the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates.

As I said previously Clinton carried the regions of PA composed of Reagan Democrats by an average of 34 points. These are voters just as likely to vote Republican as Democrat. If you don't believe me, just think back to the '88 election when PA broke for Bush I. There are just as many of these same voters in OH counties where Clinton also won.

9. Barack Obama is currently in a dead heat with John McCain, according to a recent respected poll, in Massachusetts (actually, the results were McCain 46% and Obama 44%), while Senator Clinton leads in Massachusetts by 15%. The last time a Democrat did not win Massachusetts by a substantial margin was 1980, when Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter. Even in the historic landslide election of Richard Nixon in 1972, when he won 49 states, only Massachusetts supported Senator McGovern. Senator Obama currently runs considerably behind Senator McCain in Florida and Ohio, while Senator Clinton is ahead in both of those key battleground states.

I think the above quote speaks for itself. I mean, MCGOVERN for christ's sake! He ONLY won MA and that's saying something. Speaking of whom, The New Republic is asking is Obama The Next McGovern?

Obama goes and sticks his foot in his mouth again by dissing working class people yet again.

Former president says in North Carolina:
“Today her opponent’s campaign strategist said, ‘Well we don’t really need these working class people to win, half the time they vote for Republicans anyways.’ And I will tell you something, America needs you to win and therefore Hillary wants your support….”
Apparent response to earlier remark to NPR from David Axelrod: “The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years.”

While at the same time saying that he needs to do better with blue collar, older voters. Ummm, anyone else seeing a problem here?

MyDD has a great post about DNC rules and how they apply to FL and MI. DNC rules say that while they can punish the states through their delegates, if their votes are certified, which they were in both states, then they stand and should be counted therefore Hillary is ahead in the popular vote

People talk about how wonderful it was that he gained 10 points from being down 20 to being down 10. But those were some damn expensive votes. He spent $10.63/vote to her $2.40/vote, and he still lost.

If you're still thinking that Obama should get it, because of the will of the people, the tide is turning my friends. People are deciding against Obama and independents who previously favoured him are now favouring McCain.


Over at my lj, a friend of mine keeps crying that if Obama doesn't get the nod then we will disenfranchise the AA community. What about women? What about the blue collar workers? This campaign has been so misogynistic and so sexist (I just found out that Shakespeare's Sister has been keeping a Hillary Sexism Watch.) and as I have said many times, if you don't speak up against oppressive behaviours you are guilty by implicitly agreeing with the statements by not objecting to them. (I have made this known to the Obama campaign, the DNC, and the local and state parties.) All the women I keep hearing from are getting angry about this and in no way are going to stand behind the Democratic party if they allow this to continue. There's even talk of forming a new opposition party for the Repubs. (Especially if Obama keeps shooting himself in the foot and losing ground he will lose and the Dems may as well declare themselves dead.)

EDIT: Chelsea talking about her mom's stances on women's issues

Really the war in Iraq is about oil????

Alan Greenspan tells that the war is about oil.

In his new book, Greenspan has declared that the main reason for the war in Iraq is oil. A republican telling the truth about the war? A respected one no less? What's happening?

I personally think that this is awesome partially because I've been trying to tell my parents that, but they're way more likely to listen to Greenspan instead of me. (I mean my dad reads Ann Coulter and my parents think that O'Reilly really is 'fair and balanced.')

(Quoted article below)
AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.

Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil. Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam’s support for terrorism.