Message to DNC from a very frustrated (previously faithful) Democratic party voter

Why am I frustrated with the DNC? Partly due to the DNC's unwillingness to count the Michigan and Florida votes. The reason they have given: the primaries in these states were held before the 'official' February 5th start date. Having looked at the calendars, I notice that there are two other states - New Hampshire and South Carolina - who also held their primaries before that date. The delegates from those states are to be seated at the convention. Why, then, the unwillingness to include the tallies from Florida and Michigan? If the votes from these two states were to be included in the tally, Hillary would be ahead in the popular vote over Obama.

But - and this is where my real frustration lay - I have gotten the distinct impression that Howard Dean (and the DNC under his headship and influence) would not be willing to acknowledge this fact, nor willing to acknowledge the polls that show Hillary to be the stronger candidate against McCain. So I am left with these questions. One: Why is the DNC, under Dean's headship, so intent on getting Obama's name on the ballot when that certainly does not seem to be best for the party? and two: Why has Howard Dean been so seemingly determined to lead the DNC in ways that can only be damaging to the party as a whole - denying Michigan and Florida, pushing for Obama at every turn? or, rather: Who is pulling his strings? or pushing his buttons? or, perhaps, putting money into his bank account?

As I see it, the actions of Dean and the DNC are making it easier for even McCain to conquer after Dem party leaders do the dividing.

So, DNC, I hope you will think long and hard about the issues mentioned above. Your decisions have the potential to keep the party together; they also have the potential to cause a division that would take longer to heal than the six months that lie ahead before the November election.

Which party's candidate do you want to see on that inaugural stand come January?

Breaking Up Is Hard To Do - But Why Did It Take You Twenty Years?

Sometimes I think I may be the only one in America who has a memory that goes back more than four or five days. I’ve just read that most people think that Obama has handled the Wright affair well – that is, he handled his break-up with the Rev. well. What the blazes does that mean? Am I the only one who remembers that Obama sat under Wright’s teaching for 20 years – twenty years! In a land where some people change church affiliation every two to three years, twenty years would seem to demonstrate a high level of commitment and dedication.

Am I the only one who remembers that, just a few months ago, Obama told us what a close confidante/mentor/advisor Wright had been for twenty years – that Rev. Wright the man to whom Barry referred all important decisions – for twenty years. Am I the only one who remembers that, as soon as the video clips of Wright’s teaching were circulated, this close confidante, etc. was quickly demoted to bumbling uncle whose words were not worth listening to?

If people are now thinking that Barry handled the break-up well, then I must be the only one who remembers these things. Because if people remembered, they wouldn’t be complimenting him; they would be focusing their attention on some pretty pertinent questions. Questions like: ‘Why’. Why did you stay in that relationship for so long? And ‘What’ What did you learn at church, Barry? What in Rev. Wright’s teaching kept you at his church for two whole decades? and ‘When’ When did you decide that the TUCC Afro-centric, anti-white,anti-American, pro-Islamic teaching suited you well enough to stay there so long? Are there not any other churches in Chicago – black ones, at that, if you insist on that exclusive criteria – that teach a message far less provocative and probably far closer to the Bible.

So, for me- and for any others who might remember what Obama has been saying about this relationship long ago – that is, before this last weekend - Obama’s handling the break-up well just doesn’t answer any of my questions. Especially when I consider that the close relationship with Rev. Wright was the 'shield' Obama used as his ‘defense’ when questioned about his Islamic roots and upbringing.

Oh, now – I hear you say – surely you’re not going to bring that up ‘I’ word again? Yes, I am – because now that we know that the answers Obama gave to the ‘I’ questions do not stand up to scrutiny, wouldn't it show some common sense to go back to the last point at which we knew anything for certain and start investigating from there?

There’s a lot at stake in this nomination – shouldn’t we know who the candidate really is?