It's the INCOMPETENCE, Stupid!

Believe it or not, once in awhile, someone still asks, or worse yet, ASSUMES that my point of view is simply the result of a long held resentment 'because 'MY' candidate didn't win.' Well, first of all, she DID win. Yes, I know that media tried to tell us differently, but the facts, if anyone cares, are that Hillary Clinton not only won the primaries BUT had the numbers needed to win in Denver as well. Like it or not, these are the facts. I was there and I saw it. However, that ship has long since sailed under the admiralty of Howard "The Scream" Dean, vice admiral Nancy Pelosi and midshipman Donna Brazile, and this issue, for now, at least, is moot.

The idea that anyone could still even contemplate the wan concept of anger as PUMA's raison d'etre is simply astounding because the facts, i.e., that the DNC purposefully and methodically perpetrated voter fraud upon the American public by illegally installing the losing candidate, an inexperienced, unvetted and completely unqualified candidate, while not readily available on main stream media, are not really that hard to find. Having seen in-my-face, up-close-and-personally the horrors perpetrated by the DNC on the American public and the democratic system, I sometimes forget that there are still a few Americans who remain relatively uninformed about what their party has perpetrated upon them, and, worse yet, don't seem to want to know, either. As Thomas Jefferson's oft quoted wisdom states,

"All tyranny needs to flourish is that good men remain silent."

I forget that most people have not been in the trenches, on the ground and in the news in the fight to restore honesty to media and democracy to voters. And so, although it may seem like once again preaching to the choir, I offer a brilliantly succinct crosspost from American Thinker's Kyle-Anne Shiver,entitled,"Dems’ Split over Obama Not About Race and Sour Grapes" http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/dems-split-over-obama-not-about-race-and-sour-grapes/
who so well states our reasons for fighting the good fight, and our commitment to continuing this Movement until our goals are realized.

A recent Associated Press story glibly proclaimed that “deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House.” The story relied on an AP-Yahoo poll that posed questions regarding race to white Democrats.

One is left to wonder why questions regarding race were not posed to black Democrats or why the “poll” was more of a word association test, left open to completely subjective reasoning in deciphering results. But anyone who has been following the Democratic Party rifts from this season’s primaries and caucuses would not, in my opinion, be inclined to buy the it’s-all-about-race argument.

It’s quite troubling, really, that mainstream media outlets are focusing upon “racial misgivings” factors, while all but ignoring the major divides among voting constituencies that occurred during the nominating contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. These rifts revolved much more around exactly how Barack Obama received the Democratic nomination than any sort of racial divide or even sour grapes.
In fact, there are dozens of voter groups which claim outright that Barack Obama’s nomination was garnered illegitimately and with decidedly undemocratic methods. These are the PUMA people, the NoBama folks, the caucus-fraud investigators, and a whole lot of others who fervently believe that Barack Obama is not the legitimate nominee of the Democratic Party electorate, but the nominee of the party elite and caucus strong-arm tactics.
If Barack Obama loses a large swath of traditionally Democratic voters in November, then the party should conduct serious introspection, not point fingers at white bigots and rednecks.

Howard Dean and his minions who control the Democratic Party apparatus should examine the methods used by Obama to grab the nomination and his manipulation of the caucus system, and take a long, serious look inward to see if their party still deserves the adjective “democratic.”

In the Democratic nominating contest, some votes count more than others

When the Democratic Party changed all of its nominating rules following the convention of 1968, the goal of nominating a candidate who could win the general election was changed to a goal of nominating a candidate representative of the various special constituencies of the party and rewarding party loyalty, not electability.

At the beginning of the contest, the African-American vote was split in Clinton’s favor, especially on the gender line.

Believe it or not, we're not angry--at least, not anymore. We're in love: in love with our country and its forefathers' words of wisdom; in love with our fellow countrymen and women; in love with the Democratic ideals of Franklin Delano Roosevelt; and in love with the conviction that, like our courageous forefathers and mothers, we CAN make a difference; we CAN restore truth, honor and integrity to our country and its media; and, together, we CAN build the world of equality and prosperity we all envision. For those in doubt, click on the Democrats for Principle Before Party button on the right--it will show you the way!