Barack Obama: selected, not elected

[illusionofjoy]

Riverdaughter says it perfectly:

There will never be any resolution to this primary season. Barack Obama deserves to lose. Save your breath, Obamaphiles. You are not supporting a great man. There is nothing admirable about a man who accepts fraudulent vote counts on his behalf. Everything that comes afterwards is tainted. And as for the media who hyped this man to astronomical heights, don’t expect us to ever trust anything you say until you report the truth of what happened last Wednesday. We’ve never understood your hatred of Hillary Clinton. It borders on the pathological. Now, you are as responsible as the DNC and Obama himself for what happens from here. You are responsible for whatever bad thing comes of this election because the will of the voters was not honored.

I could never support George W. Bush because, aside from his policy positions being reprehensible, he was never legitimately elected President (Florida 2000, Ohio 2004). Barack Obama is no different in regards to that. While he claims to have different positions (which he's willing to sell out at the drop of a hat), he can no more claim the moral high ground on his "victory" than Bush can. If this is "hope and change," then I shall stiffen my resolve and put up with "four more years of the same."

Comments

[mokie]

I missed the whole Convention, but I'm hearing conflicting reports on the issue of delegate votes. A number of other folks are saying that delegates don't have to vote in line with their earlier assignments/alignments, and that it's common when there's a presumptive candidate already for them to just shrug and throw the vote their way. Others are saying Clinton was ahead and voting was halted so there are no real results--that basically, someone just threw their hands up and said, "Okay, stop, it's Obama."

Truly, this whole thing just confuses me. Representative government clusterfuck at its finest.

Anywhere I can catch up on the details? Preferrably (no offense) a link where talk of threats are backed up with actual reports rather than thrown out as yet more rumor?

[illusion-of-joy.livejournal.com]

Therein lies the rub - all talk of threats is in the form of firsthand and secondhand accounts on weblogs, none of which the mainstream media seems to want to pick up on. Truthfully, the media likely doesn't see a story (read: ad dollars) there.

Pledged delegates are supposed to vote as they have pledged to, but suffice it to say that no one will lock them up and throw away the key if they don't. A roll call vote is typical, even when there is a presumptive nominee. However, Barack Obama being presumptive was a fairy tale made reality by corrupt forces within the DNC and a complacent, adoring mainstream media. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and, once Michigan and Florida had their delegates restored, was only seventeen delegates behind Obama. A floor fight should have ensued, but apparently the DNC was more interested in forcing "unity" upon party members than electing the best candidate. We'll probably never know what really happened behind closed doors (but I'm sure we have a good idea).

At this point, I find it counter-productive to argue for the nomination of Hillary Clinton and to dwell on what might have been. I could have supported Obama...way back when, but the fact that he cheated his way to the nomination seers too close to Bush v. Gore 2000. Attempts to get over that seemingly insurmountable sting have been dampened by the Obama campaign's constant shifting on the issues - "are there any core Democratic principles this man will stick to," I keep asking myself.

The way I see it, if I vote for Obama, I will only be endorsing the corruption of the DNC in 2008; them doing the kind of shit I expect from the republicans. Why should I reward my own party for betraying me and give them the opportunity to do it again? I am forced to wonder if an Obama presidency would hurt the Democratic brand, leading to something akin to a Carter precedes Reagan pattern - or worse. No, I've decided to tepidly vote McCain/Palin in the hope that the pattern will look more like a Bush I precedes Clinton pattern, rather than ultimately strengthening the republicans. On the flip side, I'm going to work my ass off for downticket Democrats so Congress, should they choose to actually do something, can effectively keep Mr. Maverick and his Alaskan partner in crime from doing any damage (if there are any contested seats in your area that Dems could pick up, let me know).

Hopefully in 2012, we will have the opportunity to vote for a real Democrat for President, be that Hillary Clinton or someone equally worthy of the position. To be blunt: right now, it's not about Hillary Clinton - it's about Barack Obama and his failures as a candidate.

[mokie]

That's part of the problem, maybe, that all of these accounts are scattered through weblogs, referenced and referred to in an offhand way so much that they begin to sound like the griping and sniping of the disgruntled rather than real complaints about real events.

To have it taken seriously--and I do agree that it needs to be taken seriously--someone is going to have to get organized, get to interviewing and organize it into a more or less coherent whole viewpoint.

I have to admit that hearing you say you're voting McCain/Palin makes me twitch, because Palin really tweaks some hard buttons with me and the idea of voting for this set of Republicans just to spite the Democrats makes no sense to me (voting for a third party, to crack the two party system? Much more my style), but at least you've got some logic behind it, and not just anatomy and spite.